As we learned in the Kelo v. New London decision, "public use" is a pretty broad concept. They can take your property and sell it to private retailers, and the only "public use" they get out of it is increased tax revenue.

I haven't found a lawyer yet who actually disagrees with the Kelo decision, which surprises me very much. I would think "public use" would have to be just that: public use. Like a public library or a freeway. Not just because some private contractor wants it and the city sees increased taxes if they take it from you and sell it to the contractor.

It looks like eminent domain isn't being used to keep the government from taking your property for bogus reasons. Only to ensure that you're fairly compensated when they do. "Public use" basically means anything that the government wants it to mean, and the courts are not on your side.

These types of blatant theft destroy cities. After all why take a risk or make improvements when if you succeed someone will just take it all away from you.

from WSJ (hint: we are screwed)
http://www.wsj.com/articles/they-can-take-it-if-they-want-it-1437767638

"The court [US SC] had already given city planners extremely broad powers to take non-blighted land via eminent domain—in 1954, not 2005. (The case was Berman v. Parker.) In 1984, the justices unanimously reaffirmed (in Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff), their deference to local government, and confirmed that eminent domain could transfer land from one private owner to another private owner. Indeed, Mr. Somin concludes, Kelo “represented progress relative to the Court’s previous ultradeferential public use jurisprudence.”

Eminent domain cases all look back to the Fifth Amendment, which states: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment extended this right to takings by state governments."

"It looks like eminent domain isn't being used to keep the government from taking your property for bogus reasons. Only to ensure that you're fairly compensated when they do. "

Even that gets gamed in a lot of cases... State and local governments have a host of tricks they can use to artificially lower the value of a property. One game that often gets played is that the government will slap a condemnation notice on whatever structure is on the property, and then declare that the property is worth less because the building is unsafe. Another trick is to change the property's zoning to something that disallows its current use; although the current owner is grandfathered, the propery's market value is now depressed because a new owner would have to remove everything associated with the current use. Yet another trick I've seen governments do is get the EPA to declare the property a Superfund site. The property is taken; the owner gets about 25% of market value, and then the EPA magically changes its mind and clears the way for the new use, without doing any cleanup.

While I'm at it, I will point out that this is an issue where a lot of liberals and conservatives agree. And their position is opposed by both parties.

In Kelo Vs. New London, the US Supreme Court basically said that state and local governments need to rewrite their laws if they want to protect property rights. From a strictly "how the law works" point of view I think that is the correct view. I'm not saying I like it; I'm just saying that is the correct legal interpretation.

State and local governments dropped the ball after that. No surprise there really. Unless you are the one having your property taken by the state most folks have the initial "how dare they!!" and then promptly forget about it.

What most folks will remember and remark about is the "new and improved" area afterwards; thinking isn't this all wonderful!

I say all that because we have that exact situation along the Jersey shore - there is one town which has a newly renovated area; nice boardwalk, lots of shops and restaurants; great tax revenue for the town. I find myself always reminding folks who tell me "how wonderful the town fix up that area" that it was all done through the abuse of eminent domain.

So far, everyone I mentioned that to seems genuinely surprised. I'll point out that the area was single family homes owned for generations by folks who toughed it out through the bad years when crime was high, crack was being sold openly on street corners, only to have the local government come along when things started to turn around and take their property.

People have such short memories; unless it happens to them.

P.S. Patrick, I go further to the right than you, I guess, since I don't think eminent domain should be used for anything except roads. Hospitals, schools, public libraries can all be built anywhere. Unlike a road, one homeowner will not block those plans. They can always built such facilities elsewhere.

Hey, look at the bright side.

Maybe they'll put in a Starbucks.