dksuddeth

Its been a long time since I offered anything for these amendment topics. Truth be told, i'm quite disappointed in the apathy and complacency shown by alot of people with regards to how they feel quite comfortable about the infringement of these 'rights' by the government. After the discussion on the fourth amendment I was quite shaken at the acceptance of the 'reasonableness' of the lack of limits afforded the government and law enforcement as long as the encroachment wasn't widespread. anyway, on the the next one.

I started this today after reading This story, regarding the Kelo v. New London case that had the supreme court 5-4 in favor of local governments absconding private propert and turning it over to private developers and then calling that 'public use', to be defined the same as 'public benefit', because it would increase the amount of tax revenue to the city.


The US is supposed to be a representative republic, not a democracy, where people have rights that can't be removed or abridged by 51% of the population. It reminds me of the analogy that 'democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner'. These people in New London had their constitutional and unalienable rights to property voted away by the majority of people in that city for 'economic revitalization' which should be completely unconstitutional and violently fought against.

I'm too angry right now to list the rest of it with cases so i'll leave that to others in this thread.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

aceventura3

Big government is going too far. Perhaps this is an issue conservatives and liberals can agree on. I don't understand the apathy or the Supreme Court's logic.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Elphaba

It's been awhile since I read the 5th Amendment and I had forgotten how much was contained in it.

jk, I believe the Supreme Court made the correct decision on New London because they judged that imminent domain it rightly a state issue, not a federal one. The result of that decision caused many states, mine included, to correct or alter their laws to prevent the same situation from occuring in that state.

Had the Supreme Court intervened and reversed the state decision, we would likely have seen subsequent challenges based upon that precident. I would liken the outcome as the same bastardization that we see in the interstate commerce clause.

I agree that what happened to New London truly sucked, but the positive outcome is that states' rights have been maintained and their laws have been cleaned up to prevent this in the future.

Redlemon

Agreed; I seem to recall part of the majority opinion essentially stating "This sucks, but our ruling matches the laws. Go change your local laws if you don't want this to happen to you."

__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.

dksuddeth

some disagreements on my part here.
First, the constitution (I believe) was written to state/declare/protect the rights of all individuals, and not just from federal intrusion. The seperate states of the colonies agreed and ratified the constitution. The tenth amendment also specifically states that those powers not enumerated to the feds, belong to the states or the people respectively.
Now, because of a ruling in the early 1800's that declared that the bill of rights only applied to the federal government, the congress then passed the 14th amendment. Because of THIS amendment, now all the states SHOULD also be bound to the bill of rights, however, this doesn't happen because we have justices seated around the courts that apply their politics in their decisions instead of ruling on the constitution.

Second, The USSC ruling majority in Kelo is anti-constitutional because the constitution protects property rights, but does allow private property to be taken for 'public use' with just compensation. Because of a new york state court decision in the early 1900s, 'public benefit' got wrapped up in that definition. This basically allowed for the majority to remove the rights of a minority based upon nothing more than a benefit to society instead of a use by society. There is a huge difference between a public school, a private railroad that society uses, and a private corporation that provides a tax revenue increase.

Third, states laws have not been corrected to prevent localities from taking private property. All that the states have been able to do BECAUSE of the USSC ruling is to deny state monies to localities that take private property and give it to developers for 'revitalization'.

again, eminent domain has become nothing more than the majority denying private property rights to individuals based on an economic outcome. Anyone remember something about how a republic is dead when people realize that they can vote themselves the money of other people? Thats what this is.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Mojo_PeiPei

Without getting to in depth into legal premises or precedents, I think that this is a joke. Just seems to me that one of the motivating factors for both the foundation of our country, and overall as a precept of philosophical/political thought, is private property. It is beyond my limited understanding of their ruling how they can vote for something that seems to strip the people of the right to property, and at the same time allow a law to stand that is so easily corruptable. Developments are taking over the world. I should go read the case briefing.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

The_Jazz

I've been sitting on the sidelines of this thread because I'm probably one of the worst violators of the "acceptance" rant in the first paragraph of the Post #1, although I've been following along pretty closely. However, the above is incorrect.

First, this issue is strictly local, just like all real estate. If local/state governments don't like this application of eminent domain, they can change the law. The people of New London, CT are at fault in this case, not SCOTUS. It was the New London law that was tested, and it did not magically become the law of the land because SCOTUS approved it. The people of New London are welcome to throw out the bastards that wrote this law with its loopholes and have the replacements go back to the drawing board, but this ruling doesn't have any effect on the people of Alabama, who have already passed a ban on exactly this kind of use of eminent domain.

That brings me to my second point - several states (Illinois among them) had outlawed use of eminent domain except for cases of blight pre-Kelo. This ruling had no effect on Illinois, Florida, Arkansas, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Montana since this kind of use was never allowed in the first place. Dksuddeth, are you aware that there is a constitutional amendment on the ballot in Texas to eliminate this loophole?

Again, any and all implications of this decision are local. That means that the "common man" has a whole lot more imput that he would if this was federal issue.

By the way, my ultimate employer won't lend money for any project that misuses eminent domain in this way.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

dksuddeth

using the 'blight' aspect of a council power is strictly based on the eminent domain principle. by simply saying that it's a local law, therefore a local issue is tantamount to saying that the constitution doesn't apply in new london. It's not any different than denver, Colorados ban on carrying a handgun. They are basically stating that the state constitution does not apply to them.

Either the US constitution is the supreme law of the land or it is not. I fail to see how any logical and rational person could remotely suggest otherwise.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

aceventura3

I don't pretend to be an expert on Constitutional issues, however I think it is clear that certain rights outlined in the Constitution should not be left up to the States.
The Dredd Scott slavery case was a property rights case, the Supreme Court ruled incorrectly in favor of "States Rights". In Roe V Wade, related to states rights, the Court correctly ruled that States do not have the right to deem abortion illegal.
In this case the Court is incorrect in deciding States have the right to take property from the owner to give to another. As Sandra Day O'connor stated in her dissent the ruling favors the powerful and influencial. I think the intent of the founding fathers was to protect the rights of the individual in the face of the powerful and influencial.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

The_Jazz

Then I don't think that you understand the decision - the Court said that this is a local issue best decided by local officials. As Elphaba pointed out, this is a states rights victory since it hands responsibility for these kind of decisions back to the state and local governments. The thought is that local governments knkow how best to serve the local population. The majority said that the Constitution does indeed exist in New London but that it does not necessarily apply. It is up to the states to reign in any local government abusing eminent domain, not the federal goverment.

This case is in all aspects a local issue strictly confined to New London, CT, and the court specifically stated that states can impose restrictions on localities for this. I don't see how a logical and rational person can see this as anything but the court handing the ability to govern back to local government and telling them to solve their own problems.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

dksuddeth

certain specific rights should not, and cannot, be left up to states OR the local governments. Again, issues will arise where a minority will have their rights removed, unconstitutionally, for the benefit of a majority. This kelo decision is one of them. I watched a very similar issue right here in arlington texas last year where the city 'condemned' several properties, holdouts that wouldn't accept a lower than 'just compensation', yet their RIGHTS were infringed because of a majority desire to have a better tax base by having a new cowboys stadium and parking lot built in their city.

The constitution applies to us all, not just states and federal. It applies to the local governments every bit as much as it does the others. It is a HUGE FAILURE on every judiciary level when basic rights are infringed or written off as 'for the better of society'. Is it acceptable that a minority be gagged of their free speech because it is better in society if they are? Is it acceptable that christians be prohibited from freely exercising their religion because they work for the government? Is it acceptable for the right to keep and bear arms be infringed because of the heinous actions of a few? Is it acceptable that the privacy rights of those accused of crimes be infringed because they are accused of crimes? Is it acceptable to deny a human being their right to representation in the courts because they were designated a meaningless title?

This is the kind of crap that I ranted about in my very first paragraph of this thread, that people easily accept that the rights of others are infringed because it either doesn't affect them directly, it benefits society as a whole, or those particular individuals were 'bad people' and therefore didn't deserve them. As my signature implies, are destruction will come from within because a majority of society is either apathetic or weak.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Elphaba

dk, sometimes the law works as it should, whether you understand the process of the decision or not. This isn't another loss of gun rights, nor is it federal interference in local issues. If you live in Connecticut, fix the law. Fix the law no matter what state you live in, but stop blaming others if you are unwilling to make the necessary changes happen in your state.

I am sorry if I seem harsh, but this truly is a state issue. Read the constitution again...to paraphrase...any right not specified to belong to the federal government is automatically assumed to be the right of the states.

I guess it boils down to how you view "property rights" in the context of the entire constitution. Where's politicophile when I need him?

dksuddeth

I'm almost as passionate about private property rights as I am about gun rights. They are pre-existing rights that are protected by amendments in the bill of rights, rights which are largely ignored since the 20th century.

no need to apologize, however, the federal government does not have rights, nor do states. They have powers that are afforded them to do their job, which is supposed to be protecting our rights.

hopefully he'll chime in here.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

aceventura3

If the points above were true and there was no Constitutional question (nor State specifically named in the lawsuit), why did the Supreme Court hear the case?

I think they heard the case because of the broader constitutional issues and it applicability across the nation. In my view a bad precedent has been established ,as Thomas stated, going from a "public use" test to a "public purpose" test.

Also, there was a one vote difference. Four justices saw logic and rationale in ways you do not think possible.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Elphaba

I think the only precedent established is that these concerns do not belong at the federal level, which I view as a good thing. As I stated before, this ruling caused great pressure on the individual states to correct any ambiguity in the eminent domain laws. I encourage you to check into any action taken by your own state.

aceventura3

I think I will side with Thomas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._New_London

Also if this issue did not belong at the federal level, why did they hear the case? I think at least four of the justices thought that it did belong at the federal level. There was dissent at the State Supreme Court as well, the issue is not as simple as 'leave it up to the locals'. I understand that the majority ruled in favor of the city, however I do not understand how you see the issue as a "local" issue. Even in Kennedy's concurring opinion he leaves open the possibility that the action taken by the city may not have been permissible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._New_London

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

politicophile

Thank you for the invitation, Pen. I've been rather busy lately and haven't had time to spend on TFP.

It strikes me that Kelo is a natural development of people who (as Thomas accuses) fail to properly distinguish between "public use" and "public purpose". That distinction mirrors the split in thinking between socialists and New Dealers (along with those further to the right). We all agree it is permissible for the government to deprive citizens of property through taxation when the money is being used to build public schools, highways, armies, etc. because those items are very obviously intended for public use.

Contrast that type of government policy with one where citizens are deprived of their property through taxation and that money is then used to provide welfare benefits to the unemployed. If the goal of such a program was to conduct an LBJ-esque "War on Poverty", we would clearly be viewing an instance of private property being taken for a "public purpose", but not strictly for "public use".

The five most liberal Justices seem to have favored the public purpose standard, while the four Justices furthest to the right favored the public use standard. My explanation for the difference in philosophies stems back to the radical change in the left's views of entitlements and public purposes that accompanied Johnson's Great Society effort.

__________________
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Elphaba

Many thanks, Adam.


Ace, please reread my posts. Not once did I say this was a local issue, but a state issue.

aceventura3

O.k. I apologize for any confusion casued by my question. Some said "local" you said "state".

I stand by my question:

I think the Supreme Court saw that the question had Constitutional and national concerns and properly heard the case.

There appears to be two issues being discussed. One - the decision. the other- is this a federal or non-federal issue? I disagree with the decision and I believe the question needed a federal (Supreme Court) response. For clarification what is your position on the two issues?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3

According to this article in IBD, in the year after Kelo many 25 states have passed law curbing eminent domain abuse. However, there is an important case being heard in Ohio.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/I...issue=20060621

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

flstf

The Norwood case is particularly troubling. The city realized that they would have a problem jusifying taking the properties to give to a private developer so they declared the properties deteriorating in order to comply with state law. Most people who live there and know the area also know the properties were not deteriorating and most homeowners there kept their houses and land in good shape.

Norwood has money problems and simply wanted to increase it's tax base. The area now is surely blighted since they tore down almost all the houses and only a few remain. Most of the homeowners, not wanting an uncertain future, sold out figuring that "you cannot fight city hall". I hope the court sends a message to cities that they cannot simply call a good neighborhood deteriorating in order to give it to private developers at their price.

Mondak

The New London case made me sick and panicked the day it was announced. I figured that coupled with things like the "patriot" act signaled the end of the US as we know it. When I thought more about it, that direction started roughly 70 years ago and it simply takes time to fully destroy what our founding fathers put together.

That day I bought a small leather bound copy of the Constitution and Declaration of Independance and I began carrying it around with me. I keep in the pages pictures of my wife, my kid and my dog as things that are important to me that I need to be reminded of all the time.

My experience lately has shown me that you cannot debate anything with any real hope of convincing anyone of anything they don't already know on some level. Why is that? People avoid reason like the plague. I sure hope that someone can convince me otherwise, but it appears that this country is well on their way to an end that we have come to deserve very much. Hopefully the nation that replaces whatever is left puts us back on a path of property rights, individual rights and a constitution that protects us from the government.

__________________
All truth passes through three stages:
First it is ridiculed
Second, it is violently opposed and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.

ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER (1788-1860)

dksuddeth

I figure it will only be a short matter of time, after state courts have ruled as the USSC did, that the local governments are well within their authority to condemn and take any property they need for 'public benefit' that you will see an entire city council rounded up, tried, and executed for pushing people too far. Then it will really become a showdown between them and law enforcement.

It's going to get ugly in this country damn soon.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

The_Jazz

I love how you accept that state courts will overturn these laws as fait acompli. It is by no means assured that these new laws will be ruled unconstitutional, especially in the face of the public outrage that the Kelo decision raised.

If you haven't read it already, I suggest that everyone take the time to sit down and read the actual decision.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf

As Ace's article mentioned, there's an almost overt invitation to the states to rule otherwise and set their own standards.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

dksuddeth

The courts are notorious for ruling against the people, even with the public outrage, when it comes to government decisions. Most notably gun rights cases but property rights as well as civil rights cases. Just because the USSC has decided that it properly belongs in the states court system does not mean that the state courts are going to side with the people, all it means is that they will use the USSC ruling that states the government can take from A and give to B because a larger tax base = public benefit. It is no different than the circuit courts stating that the 2nd amendment does not confer an individual right to bear arms because the 39 miller decision used the words 'effective militia'.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

aceventura3

I am still confused about many saying that the USSC decided this is a states or local issue. I re-read the decision. I think there is a clear federal standard (minimal - Is there "public purpose" rather than "public use") and that lawmakers and state courts can set a higher standard if they want. Given the past and now new federal standard why do you and others say its a sates or local issue?

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

Mondak

Well - I have trouble with my own historical signifigance in these things. I think had I been around when FDR exponentially expanded the reach of the US government, I would be saying the same thing. It has lasted this long. . .

You see, the easy thing to do here is to have property and individual rights be eroded in a slow "natural" process. This way less people's "line in the sand" are crossed at once. Over a couple decades, the distance that was crossed to breach that person's line seems less and therefore it can be chalked up as an innocuous thing. Sometimes you have a politician who is paticularly bold about it who will take relativly bigger bites but they are always prepared to backtrack if they need to. It is like sending people through the wire in Vietnam to test the defenses. IF they get through, they will send more people. If they don't, it was just an "isolated incident"

The other thing here is that I am not convinced there is a conspiracy to breach property and individual rights. If there were, they would be pushed through faster and more obviously. Instead, you have a series of politicians who are acting in their own self interest and at the same time claiming altruism. If someone were to point out that they were acting in their own self interest, they would respond with shock, disbelief and accuse the accuser of the same. Tell you what - I will come out right now and tell you that property and individual rights are in my best interest and I will act to keep them and not be ashamed.

The_Jazz I think this is the backdoor that keeps people at bay with this thing. In other words, They can defer to local governments the responsibility of this decision and possibly wait for the initial media hub-bub to die down. If no one freaks out then no problem. If people freak the heck out - then the local boys can be heros passing patchwork legislation that popularly defends something that the constitution was supposed to have protected anyway. Meanwhile, if the legislation is written properly, it can intentionally create loopholes to grab whatever land they want when it is convienient. (i.e. define "blighted" without being subjective...)

Two miles south of where I live, there is a strech of beachfront property called "Ponto" that is owned by a couple of individual homeowners who have been living there for 30-40 years. Sure the houses are older than most beachfront stuff that is $10M for a house, but there is really nothing wrong with them. They are painted and the lawns etc is manicured (not that either is a reason to apply eminant domain). The city of Carlsbad has declared the area blighted and sent out contracts to developers to bid on. So far the homeowners have not sold, but really they can't sell to anyone but the local government anyway since the open market would never buy one of these with the coming land grab.

Lets put it this way, if the m@yor of Carl$bad does not have at least $1 Billion stashed in the Caymans somewhere, he is the dumbest person to ever walk the earth. The expansion has been rampant with no regard for anything but more expansion.

__________________
All truth passes through three stages:
First it is ridiculed
Second, it is violently opposed and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.

ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER (1788-1860)

flstf

It looks like we have a victory for those of us concerned about eminent domain abuse in Ohio. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled against the city of Norwood 7-0 in their attempt to force a group of property owners to sell to a local developer. I am especially pleased that the vote was unanimous.

Mondak

Thanks for the update flstf. Nice to hear there are some limits so far. . . The only thing that doesn't make me too hopeful about it is that there are lots of differences between the different state supreme courts. Plus, it certainly seems easier to pack these things over time.

__________________
All truth passes through three stages:
First it is ridiculed
Second, it is violently opposed and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.

ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER (1788-1860)

Willravel

After reading the Gonzalez thread, I find myself questioning the right to not testify against one's self as a function of justice. If someone like Gonzalez is guilty, but he is the only one with the pertinent information about proving the guilt, is it in the interest of justice to allow him to be free just because there isn't corroboration? In general, would justice be served?

I honestly don't know.

The_Jazz

I agree that the possibility of avoiding prosecution for perjury raises some interesting issues. I was originally going to post something that I was going to call "inadvertent perjury" but decided against it. The thought is still half-baked in the back of my head, but there may (or may not) be something to it. Regardless, I have a feeling that SCOTUS is going to ulitmately have to weigh in. The question remains on whether or not this will be the vehicle that chose to do so.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

dksuddeth

part of the 5th amendment was a result of watching a king impose guilty verdicts on suspected criminals as well as associates. The framers felt it a much better system that one innocent person could never be convicted of a crime even if it meant that 100s of criminals go free. we sure have strayed a long ways from that premise

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

samcol

I think it was designed to prevent torture, coercion, or the threat of contempt of court being used to extract false confessions out of you (apparently the Military Commission Act overturned this by allowing hearsay evidence gained through torture to be used against you. Too bad he's not an enemy combatant, then we could torture the info out I guess ).

Perhaps it lets him off the hook here, but as many of the other rights allow the occational scumbag to get off scotch free, it still saves many others from opression.

Willravel

Couldn't those same things be used on other witnesses?
I think it's 'scott free', but no worries.

samcol

I guess you know what's on my mind haha.

To the first part, I'm not sure what you're asking I guess. Could torture and threats of contempt be used on the other witnesses, or the information gained from a person could be used against other witnesses?

Willravel

Yes. I think what you were saying is that torture and threats could be used against the accused in order to force a confession, so the 5th protects them. I was saying that the same threats and torture could be used on other witnesses the same as it could on the defendant, so they shouldn't have to testify either, by that logic.

I think it would be easier to guarantee that a witness or defendant shall not be tortured or coerced in any way in the BOR.

Deltona Couple

I have actually been involved first-hand with an iminent domain situation. Several years ago I used to live right next to a local high school in Orlando. They were expanding because of overcrowding, and iminent domain was used to allow the expansion. They gave a pretty good penny price for the houses when the first offerings were made. Some people wanted to hold out, thinking they could demand a higher price if they were the last ones. Little did they know that as time progressed, the offers went DOWN and some people wound up with very little money for their property.

Although I do agree that taking property away for PRIVATE developers is a bad thing, sometimes good things come of the use of this law. Living now in Daytona Beach, we have the old Boardwalk that is being forced out by a private developer who is taking use of the iminent domain laws, using blight as a descriptor for their reason. Anyone in the area here knows how run down it has been getting in that area. The developer I have heard is planning on making mid level condos at the location. Not exactly what I would like to see, but at least it is better than the homeless wandering around the beach area harrassing the tourists and local businesses.

__________________
"It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison