> But Woj, this case was about the ability of cities to seize property for
> commercial development - e.g., the replacement of privately owned
> residential property with privately owned Wal-Marts.
> The history of most "urban renewal" in the U.S. is the clearing of
> working-class housing and its replacement with commercial properties,
> highways, and luxury housing.
All of which was legal under previous doctrine that had held that eliminating "blight" and replacing it with private commercial development was completely acceptable. What was at issue in Kelo was whether the property of the middle class and wealthy could be taken by eminent domain in the same way the property of the poor already could.
Why progressives are even slightly conflicted on this core legal issue mystifies me. Of course, we should organize politically to stop bad uses of eminent domain, but giving property owners special legal status against the rest of the community is clearly against the interests of the democratic left.
One of the key precedents cited by Justice Stevens for the decision was Hawaii taking away the property of the vested landlords of the islands to enact some degree of land reform there. If Kelo had gone the other way, it would be hard to see how any form of land reform would not be an illegal taking.
New York City just voted to require that renters in low-income housing converted to condos be given the right to buy those units at market prices. Again, this is a form of eminent domain by local government that would be legally suspect if the Kelo decision had gone the other way.
Nathan Newman