----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com>
> joanna wrote:
>>So, to repeat my earlier query, if abunch of citizens decide that a car
>>dealership would be more productive than Bill Gates' mansion, then we get
>>to raze the mansion? You think this decision will support that move?
>
> It occured to me last night that we're talking past each other (we're
> suffering from discursive incommensurability!). Lawyers like Nathan &
> Justin are talking about points of law, and the rest of us are talking
> about how eminent domain typically works in practice. Seems to me that the
> lawyers are operating in a depoliticized realm of language, precedent, and
> abstract possibilities, but I'm not a lawyer.
I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me people are seeing this issue as something it isn't. Most people seem more concerned about the possibility that peoples homes (generally poor people) can be razed to build a Wal-Mart than the process involved in making that decision. Sure the ruling seems to say that homes can be replaced by commercial enterprises but it doesn't really say that to me. It says this may or may not happen but only after that decision has been made locally. I have a voice at my city council meetings, on zoning hearings, etc. To turn over that decision making to the courts and cut me out seems to me to be a big mistake. I admit when I first heard about the ruling I thought it sucked. After reading more about it I don't think it sucks after all. If I have misunderstood something about this ruling I'd appreciate being told where I'm in error.
John Thornton