> This is further evidence that Nathan's position is
> based on phantasmic benefits offsetting real costs
I disagree. Just as eminent domain is abused by developers, enshrining property rights in a way that protects them from eminent domain would likely open the door for even more flagrant abuses. It would likely set us all up for a round of cases on "regulatory takings," for instance. Given that, I think it's better to preserve the principle of eminent domain. Just a few years ago we used the threat of eminent domain to keep a factory open in Pittsburgh. This was only a partial success for a lot of reasons I won't go into, but it at least meant we had the option. I would not have supported the use of eminent domain in the specific case of New London, CT, but preserving that power is important. I'm with Nathan -- let's fight for a vigorous progressive agenda at all levels, and courageously progressive local governments will have the option of using eminent domain in instances where it's warranted. And while a legal strategy is important, relying on the courts to protect "the little guy" will eventually backfire, particularly given the courts' current -- and worsening -- composition.
- - - - - - - - - - John Lacny http://www.johnlacny.com
Tell no lies, claim no easy victories