This definitely doesn't count as "public use".  They are handing land over to another private party.

public land

The land is Private land. If it was public land, there would nt be an issue.

IG

Actually, there's a thoughtful legal analysis built right into the decision, in the form of the Dissent. I'll toddle off and read that now. Since four of the Justices think the other five are wrong on this one (and pretty much every conservative in the blogosphere besides me seems to agree with the Dissenters), I'm open to the increasingly likely possibility that I have my head firmly up my party-hatted behind.

---

Draginol, it seems to me that in principle there is room in the Eminent Domain doctrine for the government to take property from one private citizen and give it to another, with the understanding that the private citizen on the receiving end will better develop the land to the benefit of the community. I'm not sure that Eminent Domain requires the government to always develop the property itself (and, as a conservative, in most cases I'd prefer to see private entities do the work under contract, and at a profit).

---

Please note that none of what I've said is meant as an approval of what the local government has done in this case.

And indeed, the Dissenters make a powerful case, which challenges my whole idea of this case and its resolution.

ITs wrong, another freedom taken away...one down(depends on how you think...) _____ to go....

Reading Justice Thomas' dissent I got the impression that reading the Constitution was a lot like reading scripture. Something about the way he backed up his interpretation of the word "use," citing a dictionary and other contemporary documents that used the word as evidence.

Under this decision it's up to the legislature (or an agency acting on its behalf) to decide whether it would be more beneficial to the public good to let you keep your property or give it to someone else to make better use of it. And as Justice O'Connor points out, no one can prove that he or she is making better use of his or her property than anyone else could. And if the government reasonably believes that he or she isn't, it's within its rights to reassign the property to someone else. Doesn't that give you a chill? A private, single-family seems to me to be a rather inefficient use of land, after all.

If you take this case to its logical conclusion, the state can, based solely at its own discretion, remove people from their property in favor of other people to be put on that property.  One could find their home, their business, their legacy uprooted simply because someone else -- soemone with better political clout, wants the land you have.

I remember how people felt when I wrote about the estate tax -- I support a form of estate tax.  But this is beyond the worst extremes that estate taxes could do.

drmiler, First of all, the 5th Amendment says that private property may be taken if compensation is given. Since it's totally constitutional to take private property in exchange for compensation, that would make the compensation issue pretty frickin' material, don't you think?

It IS imaterial. How would you like to be thrown out of your home (don't refuse the compensation or you will not get anything at all) so it can be torn down and see it used to build a mall? How about if it's been your "family" home for a couple of generations? I think a little reserch might be in order for you "stute"

Eminent domain From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. In law, eminent domain is the power of the state to appropriate private property for its own use without the owner's consent. Governments most commonly use the power of eminent domain when the acquisition of real property is necessary for the completion of a public project such as a road, and the owner of the required property is unwilling to negotiate a price for its sale.

Nowhere in the definition of eminent domain is it said that they can take "private" land and give it to another "individual".
There is a BIG stink going on about the misuse of this power. And these are but the tip of the iceberg!

Link

Link

Link

Actually, all SCOTUS said is that the Federal Constitution doesn't prohibit local governments from applying Eminent Domain in this way. If local citizens have a problem with such applicaitions, or if they wish to impose controls on how their local government makes the decision to apply Eminent Domain, SCOTUS won't stop them, and neither will the Federal Constitution.

Not really Stutefish. If the Supreme Court wanted to leave Eminent Domain at the state and local level, they would have merely refused to take the case. As soon as they took the case, and presented their decision, they in affect stated that it is the law of the land that states and local municipalities are allowed to declare eminent domain on private property, even if the property is to be sold to another private entity.

All decisions by the Supreme Court set precedence as federal law. No matter which side they found for, just accepting the case took eminant domain from the hands of the state and local governments.

Well, I've changed my mind about this case. I am now convinced that the Supreme Court has made a horrible mistake with consequences none of us should welcome.

That said, I don't see anything in the case that takes the final decision about Eminent Domain away from the local governments. If SCOTUS had said "eminent domain may not be applied in this way", that would've taken eminent domain from the hands of the local and state governments. It's not like the feds will force local governments to seize private property for private development if the local governments don't want to.