I wonder how many of the people effected voted for the politicians that are now taking their homes away.

It is basically unfair to stack a city against its own law abiding residents.  With a little creativity and thought there would have been an answer to this dilemna but I fell you are right, this was done in order to get it all the way to the Supreme Court so a precedent can be set.  That's the way the game is played.  

It's NOT fundamental? How on earth can contemporary liberals push for a fundamental right to have an abortion, yet abandon a liberty that's arguably even MORE basic? And it's sloppy to say they think ANY interference is a taking... Thomas makes reference to legitimate police power in his dissent...  

RBlack said: If property rights ever became "fundamental" like Scalia and Thomas believe, medicaid would fall apart even faster than it aleady is.  

I think you're missing the point. This case wasn't about substantive due process (i.e., fundamental rights analysis); it was about ensuring that "public use" actually means something.

RBlack said: For them, it's not just about some blue-collar homeowners in New London, it's about re-establishing the same feudal, absolute property rights that caused serfdom and slavery.

The "absolutism" you refer to that maintained slavery is a thing of our dark past...But in any event, it seems absurd to throw out the idea of property rights generally because it was hijacked and abused by an evil power center at one time...You might as well say equal protection under the law should be tossed, since it was once used to justify segregated schools and public transportation (see Plessy, etc. )

Again, this case was about ensuring that "public use" is actually a meaningful limit on power...

Suppose a state had a law on the books defining "probable cause" as merely one private individual's desire to have another's home searched... Wouldn't a Supreme Court ruling upholding that definition render the warrant clause of the fourth amendment essentially meaningless? That's how I see the New London ruling...

Or put another way: why is there a presumption that warrantless searches are UNreasonable (putting a high burden on the government to justify them), but municipal  definitions of "public use" are presumed rational? ...Isn't the central message of the bill of rights that we should err on the side of liberty? ... seems this should promote more consistency in how we assess it...

RBlack said: but please remember that this case was brought by the conservative/libertarian law firm, Institute for Justice , to achieve a political end.  

Suppose a Right Wing group said something like, "oh those abortion rights groups are nothing but political - they don't really care about the individual"... Would that be fair? ... IMO, there's no reason to think these groups aren't sincere in their desire to protect our property rights...

The effort by liberals to rationalize this decision is very concerning to me. Somewhere we've lost our CLASSICAL liberalism in all this - i.e., the philosophy that is BOTH pro-privacy AND pro-property... AND pro-strict separation between church and state... AND pro gun rights, for that matter... As a classical liberal democrat, I don't think we should cherry pick liberties for protection...

Hank

The Constitutional takings argument is a distinct issue from the public use issue. There is no valid public policy rationale for taking a working man's home and giving it to Walmart of a baseball owner for a ballpark.

How local government officials can use "eminent domain" to take YOUR property -- and give it to rich developers
And how they're doing it to your fellow citizens every day, all across America!

Reviewing the same book, The Claremont Institute says What A Revolting Development

And Michelle Malkin has a roundup of conservative blogs, Home Matters: The Day After (click through for links):

The conservatives should hate the decision, but liberals should not be attacking it with them.  Redevelopment is about creating jobs and infusing a reletively poorer community with capital.  You can argue that the city's plan for redevelopment is flawed, but they are elected officials.  Absent allegations of fraud or bad faith, they represent the majority of people's will.  

Not that it matters, but I used to manage a Community Development Financial Institution in the Bed-Stuy section of Brooklyn, NYC.  Eminent Domain gives the government leverage when negotiating with holdout property owners.  These development projects enrich private parties, but are designed to also give an economic boost to dying communities and grow the tax base.  

There may be better development schemes out there, but you can't assume the city isn't honestly representing it's citizens.  Personally, I think the homeowners should be paid over time based on the new, higher FMV of the redeveloped land(to be fair), BUT in principal, communities need the power to improve conditions.  If the city leaders overreached by delegating so much authority, the people can vote them out.  

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Taking private property for public use is an establish principle in American government, not even the so called Constitution in Exile crowd is that radical.  Rather the Constitution in Exile crowd has a relatively narrow idea of what is public use, and also has a relatively broad idea of what is a takings.  But I'm disgusted at the liberals on the court that didn't take the obvious route out.  Uphold the principle of taking private property for public use and argue that this isn't public use.