this is a _non sequitur_. The issue is not urban planning vs. no urban planning (either/or, black/white). But rather, urban planning for whom (which class, etc.) and for what purpose (use-value or exchange-value, etc.)
More specifically, the issue seems to be the case where the state grabs property (with comp, of course) to give over to private business rather than for public purposes (such as highways).
But if the "left" (however defined) is disorganized, demoralized, and weak as it is nowadays, it really doesn't matter that much. Zoning, eminent domain, etc. will serve the goals of those who are more powerful, typically the biz/state elite alliance. Lack of zoning laws, eminent domain, etc., will be twisted to serve the goals of those who are more powerful, too.Those with power get the most compensation in eminent domain cases, those without get the least.
> History is a wonderful thing, but acting as if urban planning is still based solely on concepts from high modernism and 1929 is insane. The raw fact is that those who attack attempts such as New London's [New Haven's?] goal of revitalizing its downtown and promoting the rise of exurbs as the alternative of new car-based growth. Destroying eminent domain means that growth has to go to open land and contribute to sprawl-- which is what the rightwing wants. Their goal is to undermine urban revitalization in favor of sprawl.<
Is the "rightwing" that unified? does it always have the same goal? "Sprawl" may serve some right-wing interests, but there's also the right-wing interest of preserving traditional ethnic communities, patriarchy, etc. (The small-biz critique of Wal-Mart is right-wing, isn't it?)
And what does "revitalization" mean? does that mean building Wal-Marts? or does it involve creating green belts? or what? It's often useful to examine what terms mean rather than simply using them for rhetorical effect.
> If eminent domain is so much to the advantage of corporate America, why is the campaign against it being funded by the commanding heights of capitalism?<
awhile back, I heard a presentation about nationalization of the "commanding heights" and the privatization of them by governments in the old British commonwealth area. According to the author (and his plausible argument), biz benefited from nationalization -- because the gov't took turkeys off their hands and paid ample compensation -- and then benefited from privatization -- because they were able to buy at fire-sale prices.
I don't know who the "commanding heights of capitalism" refers to, but I think that there are some sectors of biz who are thinking in terms of this kind of experience (which has been seen in the US on a much smaller scale). They benefited from zoning laws, they can gain from de-zoning. They profited from expanding eminent domain and they think they might make a killing on shrinking it.
Further, there are different fractions of capital and they compete with each other. Some think they can gain from greater eminent domain powers, while other think they can gain from restricting those powers. Some others think they can gain either way (just as large biz gives to both of the official political parties in the US). -- Jim Devine / Bust Big Brother Bush! "There is no abstract art. You must always start with something. Afterward you can remove all traces of reality." -- Pablo Picasso