>>I think that's part of the problem. Fair market value doesn't compensate
>>people for their pain and suffering -- the cost of being forced to uproot
>>their lives -- which is a big deal.
>
> Hasn't eminent domain, as its meaning has expanded to incorporate the
> expropriation of private properties for the purpose of private
> accumulation, become a way of giving corporations and private developers
> properties _below_ market prices?
Which if it happens is unquestionably illegal, yet that's not the case the New London plaintiffs brought, which they probably could win if the facts were as you note.
But the justification for eminent domain is to prevent homeowners from holding out for far more than market value. There's a bit of a prisoners dilemma involved in property development. If everyone holds out, the development doesn't happen. But if one or two people hold out, they can extract above-market prices as a way to get rid of them.
> Kelo gives eminent domain a bad name and makes people even less inclined
> to support the Democratic Party than before. That being the case, it is
> odd for Nathan to applaud it. Interestingly, so does Armand, one of the
> principal bloggers at DailyKos : "Kelo Was Correctly Decided,"
> <http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/25/201045/439>, 25 Jun. 2005. But
> rank-and-file Democrats who participate in DailyKos are oppoed to Kelo:
Actually, I just find it completely bizarre that radicals would be promoting the constitutionalization of property rights, a historical abomination in our history that justified everything from slavery to blocking child labor laws by the Supreme Court. Ending judicial power to protect property rights against government regulation was THE VICTORY of the New Deal.
The reason I vehemently defend Kelo is not for the specific development in question, but for helping to put a coffin in the Rehnquist Court's campaign to revive property rights under the Constitution.
Nathan Newman