[lbo-talk] eminent domain

[Marvin Gandall]

"Eminent domain" is simply legalese for expropriation with compensation. You
don't have to explicitly attack the right of the public to expropriate
private property for public ends - and no one, as you say, is doing that -
but there is still a danger in strengthening conservative sentiment against
that fundamental collective right through persistent campaigning against the
nefarious way it is being twisted by local governments to serve private
interests. That was the only point I was trying to make. I don't doubt the
progressive intent behind the criticism being expressed on the list.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andy F" <andy274 at gmail.com>
To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org>
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 8:25 AM
Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] eminent domain


> On 2/23/06, Marvin Gandall <marvgandall at videotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> It's easy to sympathize with what others are are so passionately reacting
>> against - the use of eminent domain against small businesses and working
>> class homeowners on behalf of large realtors and retailers - but there is
>> a
>> real danger here, it seems to me, of throwing the baby out with the
>> bathwater. You have the same problem as with "regulatory capture" - where
>> institutions and laws presumably designed to serve the public interest
>> are
>> taken over by powerful private lobbies to advance and legitimize their
>> narrower interests.
>
> Could somebody warning against the absolute right of private property
> vs. eminent domain kindly identify who on the list is advocating that,
> even implicitly?  Could you, say, make a habit of it?  Practically
> every post against the SC ruling has qualified its opposition to using
> eminent domain to shift from private owners to private owners.  It
> gets kind of tiresome to read suggestions otherwise.
>
>
> --
> Andy
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>