[Erik]

As far as I understand it, the traditional interpretation of eminent domain was that government could force a citizen to sell their private property if the government needed to use the land for something that served the general public. Public streets, water processing plants, public schools, etc. I'm fine with that, if there's solid justification for the location and the need.

What I am not ok with is the new idea that future tax revenue and jobs serves the public good and therefore invoking eminent domain to take land for private developments like retail shopping areas, industrial parks, and condo developments is all okay. Yes, those things will help a city generate more tax revenue, but to forcibly take a private citizen's land/home for these purposes is nothing less than government abuse of power. The article that I linked to in my second post of this thread puts it well - this kind of thing is what we had under British rule - what we fought against to call ourselves free from tyranny in the Revolutionary War.

The problem with allowing this sort of thing is that there is no longer a line that can be drawn on what defines any use of eminent domain as illegal. If a city can show that a change in ownership would result in more tax revenue (thereby serving the public by having more money for city budgets), then nobody is safe from forcible takeover of their property.

Our land is simply on loan from the government, until they decide to take it and give it to someone else. Whether a person is given "fair market value" is not the point - the point is that the person has no right to simply say "no - I want to keep my land".

This one really gets me hot under the collar.