As a former law clerk, I know how that determination would work. Someone like me, but probably 26 years old and straight out of law school, would write a memo for the judge. If the judge was a right wing Econ & Law type, the judge would likely come up with a theoretical justification for the project bearing no relation to empirical reality. If the judge wasa holdholder liberal without economic experitise, who knows how she'd decide and on what basis? So I don't think that putting judicial barriers to ED of the sort rejected in Kelo would be a very good idea.
The bodies that are competent to determine whether expected benefits will accruse are economic developing agencies with the expertise and resources to do the research and the analysis. And that's the truth. Sorry if that doesn't sound very revolutionary.
jks
--- joanna <123hop at comcast.net> wrote:
> I don't think anyone has a problem with eminent
> domain. I think the
> problem has to do with the precedent set by this
> case with using eminent
> domain to justify increasing profit for capital. In
> other words, the
> case for "public benefit" is getting thinner and
> thinner.
>
> Joanna
>
> andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>
> >No. I'm saying in practice most eminent domain is
> >pretty neutral stuff, it's not destroying whole
> >neighborhoods for factory construction (we should
> be
> >so lucky), highways or Wal-Marts. It's running
> >pipelines through remote farmland, getting
> easements,
> >and the like. You don't really want to block all
> use
> >of ED as practical matter. Nathan may be talking
> >democratic theory. I'm talking practical economics
> >mainly (as well). jks
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________ Yahoo! Sports Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football http://football.fantasysports.yahoo.com