Supreme Court ok's Property Seizures

[goldfish]

. . .  If the owner does not want to sell, and the land will be sold to a 3rd party, Eminent Domain should not be in effect.
[right][snapback]82000[/snapback][/right]

But Jahcs, that's not the dividing line in Kelo at all.

Prior to Kelo, a number of major cases already approved the eminent domain seizure of property and subsequent transfer of that property to other private entities.

See, e.g., Midkiff (seizing property from large landholders in Hawaii and redistributing to poor Hawaiians pursuant to state law), Berman (seizing property in a section of DC and transferring to developers pursuant to urban renewal plan), Poletown (seizing property and transferring to company to build a new plant).

The question in Kelo was whether the public use requirement of the takings clause included economic development, not whether or not taken property could be given to another private recipient.