We claim this borough in the name of Columbia!

[Columbia2002]

<p>

uh, C02, philosophically I agree with you, but the Supreme Court does not:</p>

<p>Kelo v. City of New London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

</p>

<p>And on the subject of individual rights, the Supreme Court also thinks this:</p>

<p>[Korematsu</a> v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States]Korematsu”>Korematsu v. United States - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>

Many have shared your knee jerk, emotionally based reaction to actual and proposed uses of eminent domain.

</p>

<p>My reaction is based on: 1) a plain reading of the Constitution (“nor shall private property be taken for PUBLIC USE, without just compensation”), 2) an economic analysis of the efficiency of takings and the hold-out problem, and 3) the consistent failures in practice of public purpose takings. Nice try diminishing my views to “emotionally based.”</p>

<p>

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.

</p>

<p>Huh? You’re confusing the constitutional issue with the economic issue.</p>

<p>

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.

</p>

<p>Are you talking about the Trump project in Atlantic City? THE ECONOMIC GOOD OF THE COMMUNITY??? A BILLIONAIRE WANTED TO MAKE THE WOMAN’S PROPERTY INTO A LIMOUSINE DRIVEWAY SO HE COULD GET EVEN RICHER!!</p>

<p>Public purpose takings never pan out. A private company always promises that its new use of the land will bring in higher tax revenues, more jobs to the area, yada yada. And almost always, these benefits are never realized. Example #1 is the landmark Poletown case, which turned out to be an economic disaster. Public purpose takings are a charade.</p>

<p>

Columbia’s case is somewhere between the two. As a nonprofit established for the public good, Columbia can claim a little more high ground than a mall developer. It is my impression that many of the holdouts and complainers in the target area are of the “gimme more money” variety, rather than the “my grandparents were born and died in this house and you can kiss the rosiest part of my ass” variety.

</p>

<p>Not sure if I buy the “nonprofit established for the public good.” Eminent domain for roads is one thing, but why should an exclusive private school be on much higher ground than the mall developer? </p>

<p>Why is a “gimmie more money” holdout entitled to less sympathy? What about business owners who have owned a business somewhere for their entire lives and established a ton of goodwill?</p>