Report a Comment

Alex's point is right on. My initial disgust at the Kelo decision was replaced by something a little more nuanced once I learned more about it. It wasn't a huge sea change in federal law — it was really upholding what was essentially the status quo, and allowing states to determine more restrictive standards for eminent domain. The decision was the best thing that happened for the far-right zero-government folks, though, drumming up more support than ever for multiple state and local initiatives that would have taken away the ability to use ED nearly at all. (I think it's a city in Arizona or perhaps statewide that now needs 100% agreement from all residents of a district to declare it a historic district. Basically ending the possibility.)

I would certainly much rather see ED used truly for the public good and not for private interests. Proponents of ED at-all-costs saw what popular opinion could do to restrict what can be a very useful tool following Kelo.

I'm not sure about having to pay more than fair market value, and how that would square with the takings clause of the Constitution. Paying more in ED cases than you would otherwise. But I'm no constitutional scholar. :)

by Steve on Jun 1, 2009 10:32 am • link • report