> WS: I think this is generally a good ruling which allows cities to fight
> slum lords. Slum lords are a big problem in cities like Baltimore - it is a
> far more common problem than abuse of the eminent domain. From a broader
> point of view it is also a progressive decision, affirming the superiority
> of the collective rights over individual rights.
Wojtek, originally I'm from Chicago, where the use of eminent domain for "slum clearance" was quite bad. There, "urban renewal" eventually became known as "negro removal." A demilitarized zone was carved around the University of Chicago, for example, destroying a down-at-the-heels neighborhood that had character despite being in bad shape. (It was one "home of the blues.") This lead to crowding in other Black neighborhoods, because public housing wasn't built fast enough. When it was built, it consisted of soul-less high-rise slums that are now being torn down because they were disastrous.
I think that the lesson is that collective rights don't work so well (and aren't inherently superior to individual rights) if the state isn't controlled democratically by the people. In Chicago, of course, the local state was controlled by Hizzoner da Mare, Richard J. Daley (backed by the Irish/Polish/Italian bloc), while the Federal state was controlled by Johnson and his ilk.
Collective rights represent only a _potential_ for good. Also, some protection of individual rights is needed. -- Jim Devine "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.