<p>Columbia2002: Many have shared your knee jerk, emotionally based reaction to actual and proposed uses of eminent domain. A much more reasoned and in depth analysis is necessary to fairly balance the interests of the public good versus individual property rights. It is a more complicated issue than one may think at first glance. The best way to appreciate and understand the subtle but complex issues inherent in many eminent domain issues is to read the case law analyses. On several occassions, I have espoused views similiar to yours prior to a more studied approach and in depth analysis. Eminent domain is certainly in conflict with a society that places a very high value on individual rights. An interesting result in Atlantic City, New Jersey involved a lone holdout property owner against a very generous casino development company’s bid for a small home; eminent domain was not used as it was not then available for use by private developers for publicly sanctioned projects so the developers simply built the casino around the lone holdout’s home. The property owner was not unwilling to sell, he or she just wanted something like 100 times fair market value when the developer was offering 50 or 60 times FMV. Essentially, the lone holdout was trying to extort the developer, and the economic good of the community, by the mistaken belief that a lone holdout would thwart the entire project. In a democracy, the lone holdout was without support, but balancing individual property rights even in the face of overwhelming odds of 99% vs. 1%,</p>