The Supreme Court decision yesterday looks huge, especially because Justice O’Connor said, in her dissent: “Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded.”
The local implications might be major. Developers with big plans and sufficient clout can invoke eminent domain to get your property (with compensation of course), even if you don’t want to sell it. In its editorial, the Times notes that the property owners had a valid concern about calling it “public use” when you hand over private property to a private developer. But the paper supports the decision, calling it “a welcome vindication of cities’ ability to act in the public interest.” Notice the ambivalence in the Washington Post.
Any local speculations (so to speak)?