>Eminent domain as it is put to use now, in addition to being a
>corporate giveaway, is a scheme for job destruction than job
>creation. That's what Kelo justifies: "Also rejected is
>petitioners' argument that for takings of this kind the Court should
>require a "reasonable certainty" that the expected public benefits
>will actually accrue," in the words of Justice John Paul Stevens
>(<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=04-108&friend=nytimes>).
That's lovely. This is further evidence that Nathan's position is based on phantasmic benefits offsetting real costs.
Given the dismal history of economic development schemes in the U.S., it doesn't make much sense to argue from grand legal principle. It'd be not unlike the way the right uses civil rights language to argue against affirmative action.
Doug