Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
-But the city took the property this spring through its powers of -eminent domain and handed it to a developer with a different tenant: -Home Depot Inc. Says Mr. Trent: "After having carried it all this time, for them to -step in and take it away from me -- it really denies me my corporate -livelihood," Mr. Trent says. -Desperate for tax revenue, cities and towns across the country now -routinely take property from unwilling sellers to make way for -big-box retailers.
Ah the "denial of corporate livelihood"-- the horror! I'm no fan of big box stores, but moving use to uses that produce more tax revenue for a city seems like it's in the public interest. Admittedly, with better tax systems, other uses might generate more local tax revenue, but other state-imposed rules usually restrict city taxing powers. And now you want those same states that have hog-tied local tax powers to also hog-tie their land planning powers.
What's "public use" should be a question for democratic debate, not unelected judges. A more interesting issue, and the real constitutional one, is what constitutes "fair compensation." If people are forced to sell property at a cost below what it was worth before the development was proposed, then they have a legitimate beef.
But that is a completely separate issue that the rightwing is mixing up in the debate in order to confuse people and push through these rightwing bills to strip cities of home rule powers.
Nathan Newman