Supreme Court ok's Property Seizures

[jahcs]

Supreme Court website: Kelo Question

04-108 KELO, ET AL. V. NEW LONDON, CT, ET AL.
Decision Below: 843 A.2d 500 (Conn. 2004)
QUESTION PRESENTED
What protection does the Fifth Amendment's public use requirement provide for
individuals whose property is being condemned, not to eliminate slums or blight,
but for the sole purpose of "economic development" that will perhaps increase tax
revenues and improve the local economy?
Cert. Granted 9/28/04

This is the central issue most folks are focused in with this case. Can the State sell my property to a 3rd party without my consent? If the State were to take ownership directly (after due compensation) we wouldn't be squaking so loud.

From your post on the 1984 Midkiff decision:

...[a]ny departure from this judicial restraint would result in courts deciding on what is and is not a governmental function...

I would contend that the generation of tax revenue is not a function of Government. The levy and collection of tax revenue is. The redistribution of property to a 3rd party on the promise of increased tax revenue is not a proper justification of "public use," in my opinion.

Reading through some of the transcripts of the Kelo hearings:
Kelo transcript 04-108 Opening Arguments Page 9:

11 JUSTICE SOUTER: Well, I'm not interested
12 in the label. I'm just saying if the government says
13 we need to increase the tax base because we have a
14 depressed city, so we are going to take some of our
15 tax money now, and we are just going to buy up
16 property that people are willing to sell to us, and
17 we are going to assemble parcels. And when we get a
18 big enough one, we are going to sell them to a
19 developer for industrial purposes. And that will,
20 that will raise the tax base. Is there anything
21 illegitimate as a purpose for governmental spending
22 in doing that?
23 MR. BULLOCK: No, Your Honor...

The item on lines 15 and 16 is a key feature of the case that was glossed over in the decision. 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.