Thanks for the article. I'm of the opinion that Kelo was made controversial because it was made by the "liberal" majority of the Supreme Court. Conservatives jumped on the case as an example of how those evil liberals want to take your property. Much less noise would have been made if Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts had been among the majority.

Sorry Andrew, I think people ought to be paying more attention to this issue. It's one thing to use imminent domain for truly public projects, like highways, but it ought NEVER to be used to clear away modest middle class neighborhoods in order to provide pricey housing and retail for the rich. If someone is lucky enough to have a modest home on the beachfront, no one ought to be able to kick them out because values have made it impossible for any middle class person to buy beachfront property anymore. Almost all the new urban development in our cities is for the affluent with perhaps a nod to affordable housing for low income families. What about the middle?

We are creating a world of cities that are divided between upscale communities and slums, resort areas that are made up entirely of the wealthy and the trailer dwellers who serve them. The middle class has to live in suburbs so far away from where they work, two hour+ commutes each way are now the norm for people working in some cities that used to be home to lovely middle class family neighborhoods. Instead of improving the economy for all, these developments just increase the gap between haves and have nots and help shrink the middle class. I say, no more condemning perfectly decent property to take it from teachers and firemen and give it to stockbrockers. And it DOES happen.

Andrew Cohen seems to split his time between being American's last communist, as in the piece above.

Where I guess he has adopted this position hoping to get as a reward a Dacha in downtown Bridgeport after all the private property is seized.

And then Cohen spends the rest of his time being WAPO's Al-Qaeda-in American cell, as in his previous posts this month.

Either way, this guy's views are completely repellant.

There's reflexive leftism and then there's just idiocy.

State legislature isn't "government?" What a wierd stance to take. You are out of touch with the rest of America. You need to read Parade and American Profile regularly.

the bill of rights applies to state government's as well:

"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Private development is not public use. The significance of Kelo is that the supreme court had the chance to assert that the fifth amendment means something and it did not.

So...the Supreme Court decides that it's fine for the government at some level to take perfectly respectable houses, houses that aren't 'blighted' in any way, not for a public project but so that a developer can build fancy houses...and Andrew Cohen thinks that's not an important change and not a story deserving major coverage. Huh. I guess he and I have different definitions of "important." And I also guess he and I have a different definition of the "public good." I think nice, respectable, affordable houses that have been maintained over the years are at least as much of a public good as upscale condos and trendy eateries.

NONE of you commenters have a clue. Have ANY of you actually READ the Kelo decision. All the court said was this: We're not going to decide what "public use" means, your state legislatures can make that determination better than we can. The Supremes simply handed the decision-making power to the states. That's it. So, if you don't like eminent domain, call your legislator, and quit whining!

CT, I've read the decision and my comment still stands. Private development is not public use. Period.

Yep, read the decision. Yep, already started talking to the state legislature. That doesn't make the decision any less significant, though. What in the *world* makes you think that it does, CT?

"If you don't like the eminent domain rules in your state, you don't have to fight the might of the entire federal government and you don't have to bowl over the Supreme Court. All you have to do is either get elected reform candidates who pledge to restrict eminent domain laws and/or who are willing to finally rid their legislatures of the horrible influence of lobbyists."

If only that were true of abortion, a right guaranteed by the feds, with scorn directed at states who might want to regulate it.

The fact is, people should be wary of court decisions like this, and a little anger is good. The Kelo decision was a stunning defeat for those who favor limited government, and also for those hoping the SCOTUS will defend the little guy from intractably liberal Blue-State legislatures.

I recommend you rent "The Castle," the Aussie independent film on home seizures. It's a more lively issue view than one can find in Parade.

I think it's a bit disingenuous to paint this in terms of 'govt. stealing my land so rich people can build fancy houses.' The Kelo case revolved around plans to build a $270 million pharma research facility and homeowners who didn't want to sell. If you can argue that eminent domain is well and good to run utility lines or roads - for the good of the community - then there's a case to be made that economic development and jobs are also for the good of the community too, no?

From MD: "(T)here's a case to be made that economic development and jobs are also for the good of the community too, no?"

Well, sure. The question is not -- at least, it's not for me -- whether eminent domain is evil. It's not. It has its place in public policy. If it weren't for emiment domain, all kinds of worthwhile public projects would never have been completed. The question is, when should government use it and when should it not?

The answer to this question used to be fairly clear, but the Supreme Court has made the issue much, much fuzzier, and I don't think that is a desirable thing. Now instead of the clear and fairly undisputable "public use," we have this vague standard known as "public good." Maybe local governments will use this new freedom well, but maybe they won't. It pretty much depends on the government in question, doesn't it?

CT: >>The Kelo case revolved around plans to build a $270 million pharma research facility and homeowners who didn't want to sell.<<

No. The Kelo case involved parcels that were *adjacent* to the proposed research facility -- the new facility, according to the opinion, is supposed to be a catalyst for rejuvenating the town. Which sounds fine, except that everyone agrees that the parcels in question didn't need rejuventating -- as the opinion says, "There is no allegation that any of these properties is blighted or otherwise in poor condition; rather, they were condemned only because they happen to be located in the development area."

And as the opinion also makes clear, those parcels were (and presumably still are) slated to be used for residences, office space, a river walk, maybe a marina, restaurants, shopping and so on. Not a "pharma research company."

So in my opinion, people shouldn't be asking themselves if eminent domain is a bad idea. They should be asking themselves when it's a good idea and when it's a bad idea and then coming up with ways to minimize the occasions when turns out to be a bad idea. And they should be asking themselves just how much they trust their local governments to make the right decision.

Without commenting on the legal merits of the Kelo decision, I will say this: Andrew Cohen's article is based on an 8th grade civics class view of how government works. The Supreme Court gave local legislators the green light to basically sell off the eminent domain power to special interests. It's very, very hard for people--particularly the poor--to win these battles, because politicians get political gain from selling favors. That's why there have been about 10,000 uses of eminent domain in the last 5 years that transferred property to private persons.

Imagine if we were talking about the First Amendment and censorship. Would Cohen's attitude be, "the courts play no useful role, just vote out politicians who like censorship"?

Great point, Matt.

I'm sorry, last I knew the Legislature IS a part of the "government." Just like governors, economic development agencies, zoning boards, and tax collectors. They ALL have a hand in eminent domain actions.