Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

...

Eminent domain has been (ab)used for that purpose
since before the Constitution was adopted. I've been
opposed to the practice since first becoming aware of
in the early 1970s. But I am not so dishonest as to
argue that it is unConstitutional, or something new.
Indeed, I am astonished that a case disputed centuries
old settled law got to the USSC

It is pretty hard to see how an arugment can be made that
a prohibiton of confiscation of property WITHOUT just compensation
does not implicitly permit confiscation WITH just compensation.


"Just compensation" is not enough. The Fifth Amendment says private
property shall not be taken FOR PUBLIC USE without just compensation.

That's a good point. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the
confiscation of property for tranfer of ownership to another private
party. Indeed, if that is distinct from confiscation for public use
then it doesn't even require just compensation for forced private
party to private party transactions.

Historically property that was not being developed, what we now call
'greenspace' was often condemned, and confiscated then sold (perhaps
typically at public auction, but certainly not always ) to developers.
While the legal argument was that this was done for the pubic good,
to increase the tax base or employment the real reason usually was
that some infuential developer wante dthe property bur the owner didn't

want to sell, at least not for what the developer was willing to pay.

Right or wrong (personally, I deplore the practice and would
like to see it outlawed) it has been going on for as long as there
has been formal ownership of real estate. If it was the intent
of the founding fathers to outlaw the practice they should
have been more specific. I wish they had.

--

FF