This is yet another example of how reactionary the Left has become -
defending private property against public use. This is where I really part
with the Left altogether - I am not just for the eminent domain, but against
private land ownership altogether.
Also, I understand that eminent domain has been largely used against
absentee landlords aka slumlords who own run down property that creates
urban blight but as soon as they scent development they see an opportunity
for profiteering and refuse to sell waiting until prices go sufficiently up
so they end up with a hefty windfall. Of course, slumlords never appear to
the public in their own true selves, as ruthless profiteers - they usually
put forward a spokesperson, and old lady or some activistist wacko to create
an impression of 'da people' being 'oppressed' by the 'gummint.'
Wojtek
I thought this issue wasn't about the transfer of private property to public hands but the transfer of private property from one owner to another. Along the lines of saying "Your neighborhood sucks and would make the city more income if it were a theme park so we're giving to Disney and kick your ass out." Why wouldn't the left fight against this?
While in my head I love the idea of eliminating private land ownership I have a difficult time figuring out a way to do this without increasing inequality.
John Thornton