The case as I understand it just says that states, cities, counties, whatever can create laws to take land from private citizens for a more 'public' use. It would stand to reason that they could also create laws forbidding the practice.

What I'm saying Tom is that most communities already take land by eminent domain on a routine basis. My community actually takes land this way and then leases it to businesses at bargain basement prices -- they tell the public that this is good for everyone because of lower prices and increased tax revenue. In the case of Oklahoma City, I'd say that the Bass Pro Shops was a pretty decent deal that spurred some major growth in our "Bricktown" entertainment district.

I agree with I think Justice O'Connor in her assessment that the law puts the wealthy corporations at a major advantage over private landowners.

My hope is that this decision spurns public support and therefore legislative support for more laws protecting private property rights. In some communities, we actually may end up closing some of the loopholes that have been in use for quite awhile.

As for the Dallas example, unless Texas law says otherwise, it would have been legal before the decision because the stadium would probably have been owned by the city and leased to the Cowboys -- that is the deal that y'all have with Jones, isn't it?

Absolutely. Now that the city has "last person leaving, please turn out the lights" written all over it, it will be interesting to see what happens. And no way is Onarato doing himself any favors by trying to get the rest of the county to bail out the city's bankruptcy. Washington County, here I come!

If this is true, the irony . . .

Link to the Source

^^^^^^^ Ah, sweet sweet irony^^^^^^^

States Move to Protect Property

By Emily Bazar, USA TODAY
Wed Aug 3, 7:17 AM ET

States across the country are rushing to pass laws to counter the potential impact of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in June that allows state and local governments to seize homes for private development. (Related story: Ruling may doom homes)

In Alabama Wednesday, Gov. Bob Riley will sign a law that prohibits the state, cities and counties from taking private property for retail, office, commercial, industrial or residential development. "We don't like anybody messing with our dogs, our guns, our hunting rights or trying to take property from us," says state Sen. Jack Biddle, a sponsor of the law.

Delaware also has changed its law since the high court ruling on eminent domain. Legislatures in at least eight other states are weighing proposals this year. More may be coming. And Congress is considering action.

"When legislatures start new sessions in January, I expect the majority of states to take up bills that would restrict the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes," said Larry Morandi, environmental program director for the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The issue has spawned an unusual alliance among conservatives opposed to the principle of government seizing private property and liberals worried that poor people would be the most likely victims.

The actions are a swift response to a Supreme Court decision in a Connecticut case. For the first time, it ruled that condemnation of private property solely for economic development was constitutional.

In that case, the justices accepted New London, Conn., officials' plan to raze homes to make way for a hotel, office complexes and a marina.

But the court left the door open for states to limit the use of eminent domain for economic development.

um....

wasn't having a gauranteed place to live free that no one could take away from you the entire purpose of creating this country in the first place??


we've fallen.

Actually, it was a tax evasion scheme.