WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A city can take a person's home or business for a development project designed to revitalize a depressed local economy, a divided U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in a decision that could have nationwide impact.
...The residents opposed the plans to raze their homes and businesses to clear the way for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices. They argued that it amounted to an unconstitutional taking of their property, located on a peninsula that juts into the Thames River.
[Justice] Stevens upheld the city's plan under the U.S. Constitution, which allows the government to take private property through its eminent domain powers in exchange for just compensation.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice O'Conner wrote: "Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. [Let's not forget the local politicians who get to spend the extra tax $$$$]
Read all about it
Eminent domain was to allow cities to build
things to benefit the public -- roads, parks, water/septic/electric plants, etc. Now the Supreme Court has endorsed the city taking property away from one private owner specifically to give to another private owner because the city's tax revenue will benefit. I know of another case a few miles away from me just like it. They've been waiting for this judgement before continuing. We'll hear about more of them now...