as i posted to list yesterday, thursday's s.c. ruling relied upon warren court majority opinion in '67 _hawaii v mIdkiff_, in that case, court held that phrase ''public use' in 5th amendment 'takings' clause did not exclusively mean that taken property must be owned/operated by gov't (such as roads, bridges, even sports arenas such as orblando's 'orena')...
hawaii legislature had passed land reform legislation empowering gov't to condemn land of large landowners and transfer ownership of said land to tenants, in that instance, court held that breaking up land oligopolies to correct *evils* (opinion's language, not mine) associated with concentrated landownership served *public purpose*(again court's phrase), while some may prefer cooperative/collective/community land, anyone really opposed to midkiff outcome...
new london decision, in effect, turns midkiff upside down in favoring wealthy, a problem of relying upon supremely political court... michael hoover
-------------------------------------------------------------- Please Note: Due to Florida's very broad public records law, most written communications to or from College employees regarding College business are public records, available to the public and media upon request. Therefore, this e-mail communication may be subject to public disclosure.