I do think it’s worth it to put aside one’s anger at the expansion of power that this decision really and truly does seem to represent, and look at the complexities of making major urban projects happen. When you do that, I think you’re strongly compelled to notice that some sort of compromise needs to emerge where a single person can’t unreasonably deny highly desirable progress, but neither can the government arbitrarily substitute its own judgement for that of property owners without genuine owner recourse.

Hopefully, that’s what happens, and hopefully each state finds a way to address this. What’s really needed is some mechanism where the state is required to meet some high burden of proof, and where any property owner under threat of an eminent domain taking has access to some sort of independent due process. By independent, I mean some process that is not a government council with a rubber stamp. I envision some sort of eminent domain court with the power to weigh the facts and make a judgement that the state did or did not err in judging that a given taking was worth it.

I think that governnment entities do deserve SOME latitude in the context of modern complexities. But certainly not BROAD latitude. IMOP, The law does not speak well enough to this issue. So legislators ought to…

I’m not a lawyer but I understand in both decisions the court is looking to the legislature to clarify. Of course, in California, our representative body is unable to function on truly controversial issues, so it will have to be settled by voter initiative. I think we have an eminent domain restricting initiative coming up in November. The last one failed because it over reached.

Kelo’s house was not demolished–it was actually moved. She is living not too far away from the original site.

That said, this was easily among the worst cases in Supreme Court history–but it was actually the correct decision based on the existing law. As appalling as the notion is, eminent domain laws do not properly restrict government taking powers. The majority ruled based on the law before it, rather than act like judicial activists ruling and creating law.

Isn’t that what the right always wants? Or do they just like judicial activism when it suits them (ala Bush v. Gore).

Fortunately, state legislatures in a number of states have more specific laws or have since enacted more specific laws to protect people from this kind of abuse.

Ironically, for me anyway, is that I find myself concurring with the minority right who were engaging in political activism in trying to rewrite the law from the bench when they argued against the taking–which is why judicial activism–when it acts as a counterweight to political abuse by the powerful is a good thing.

My favorite nit: These types of projects will ALWAYS be touted with “economic impact” statements that claim huge benefits. Even when those studies are completely on the up and up, they will ALWAYS omit the flip-side NEGATIVE economic impact of the additional taxation required to pay for them, which is about exactly the same save with a “minus” sign in front of it. But promoters and politicians get away with it because the negative impact is spread out thinly over the entire taxing district, while the benefits accrue in focused areas that can be easily seen.

You can see the new business at the few shiny stores and restaurants in/near the projects, but you don’t see the loss of business in all the other venues that are impacted.