Quote:
|
Originally Posted by scaeagles
Oh - I forgot...the supreme court says it's OK for government to take the property.
|
Actually, it is the Constitution that says it is ok for the government to take property. It isn't like eminent domain was a creation of the Warren court. The current argument is simply about when the government can take property.
If urban renewal and blight mitigation is
ever a justification (and I'm not saying it is, then the neighborhood in question is a good candidate. With only four residential structures, probably not tenant owned, the specter of forced evictions isn't that bothersome since they'd be equally evicted if the owners sold willingly. The majority of the area is ramshackle industrial use or the type of commercial use that tends to border industrial areas.
This site has good photos of what the D.C. city planners are trying to clean up. I'm not a big fan of eminent domain and think it is overused, but a city-owned ballpark is a public use (even if they then allow themselves to be raped on the leases and concessions) and I can't put this into the category of one of the extremely bothersome cases (as in
Kelso where there wasn't even a solid plan for re-use of the seized property).