Note that I'm in the minority on Usenet in never condemning Stevens'
decision in Kelo v. City of New London Connecticut. Also, the Conecticut constitution has a takings clause:

SEC. 11. The property of no person shall be taken for public
use, without just compensation therefor.

"Public use" doesn't mean "land the public will use" but that the stated
public purpose in state law fulfilled the constitutional requirement.

Government action chooses winners and losers, like a public road
being built (perhaps the right of way was acquired by taking) so that
a particular parcel of land may be developed or directing building
improvements at one public school but not another.

In New London, the development was never built.

The Institute for Justice represented a developer in a case in New York
in which the facts were even more egregious than in Kelo.

Bowers v. Oneida County Industrial Development Agency

Petition for certiorari denied on March 24, 2025

They intended to develop land across from a new hospital for a medical
office building. A competing developer had purchased a nearby parcel to
develop their own medical office building and wanted this parcel for a
parking lot so they had the government take it.

47 states have amended their eminent domain statutes to make it more
difficult to take property that doesn't directly benefit the public.
That's what Stevens said was the right way to handle the issue. New York didn't.

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/bowers-development-llc-v-oneida-county-industrial-development-agency/

https://ij.org/case/bowers-v-oneida-county-industrial-development-agency/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mar 26, 2025 at 11:41:03 PM PDT, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:

Note that I'm in the minority on Usenet in never condemning Stevens'
decision in Kelo v. City of New London Connecticut. Also, the Connecticut constitution has a takings clause:

SEC. 11. The property of no person shall be taken for public
use, without just compensation therefor.

"Public use" doesn't mean "land the public will use" but that the stated public purpose in state law fulfilled the constitutional requirement.

Worst SCOTUS decision in modern history.

Government action chooses winners and losers, like a public road
being built (perhaps the right of way was acquired by taking) so that
a particular parcel of land may be developed or directing building improvements at one public school but not another.

In New London, the development was never built.

The Institute for Justice represented a developer in a case in New York
in which the facts were even more egregious than in Kelo.

Bowers v. Oneida County Industrial Development Agency

Petition for certiorari denied on March 24, 2025

They intended to develop land across from a new hospital for a medical
office building. A competing developer had purchased a nearby parcel to develop their own medical office building and wanted this parcel for a parking lot so they had the government take it.

47 states have amended their eminent domain statutes to make it more difficult to take property that doesn't directly benefit the public.
That's what Stevens said was the right way to handle the issue.

Why? Unlike issues like abortion, the federal Constitution directly addresses this issue in Amendment V. This isn't something that's properly the domain of the states.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Mar 26, 2025 at 11:41:03 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

Note that I'm in the minority on Usenet in never condemning Stevens' >>decision in Kelo v. City of New London Connecticut. Also, the Connecticut >>constitution has a takings clause:

SEC. 11. The property of no person shall be taken for public
use, without just compensation therefor.

"Public use" doesn't mean "land the public will use" but that the stated >>public purpose in state law fulfilled the constitutional requirement.

Worst SCOTUS decision in modern history.

That lets state legislatures off the hook who wrote those unjust laws in
the first place.

Government action chooses winners and losers, like a public road
being built (perhaps the right of way was acquired by taking) so that
a particular parcel of land may be developed or directing building >>improvements at one public school but not another.

In New London, the development was never built.

The Institute for Justice represented a developer in a case in New York
in which the facts were even more egregious than in Kelo.

Bowers v. Oneida County Industrial Development Agency

Petition for certiorari denied on March 24, 2025

They intended to develop land across from a new hospital for a medical >>office building. A competing developer had purchased a nearby parcel to >>develop their own medical office building and wanted this parcel for a >>parking lot so they had the government take it.

47 states have amended their eminent domain statutes to make it more >>difficult to take property that doesn't directly benefit the public.
That's what Stevens said was the right way to handle the issue.

Why? Unlike issues like abortion, the federal Constitution directly addresses >this issue in Amendment V. This isn't something that's properly the domain of >the states.

The takings clause doesn't address all related issues such as eminent
domain. It doesn't address rights in property at all although the due
process clause in Amendment V does to a small extent. There's no "negative taking" whether or not it's implied, that is, a taking is prohibited if
it's not for public use.

We've seen a handful of cases in which attorneys have successfully argued
that police or government actions destroyed property and that therefore
the property was taken for public use and the owner is entitled to just compensation.

That use of "public use" is not "the public shall have access to the
property" as the appellants in Kelo argued or I.J. would have
argued had Bowers been granted cert.

If "public use" were ever so narrowly defined by federal courts, then
there goes the limited property owner's right to just compensation
deprivation of property in non-public use situations.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

Mar 26, 2025 at 11:41:03 PM PDT, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

Note that I'm in the minority on Usenet in never condemning Stevens' >>>decision in Kelo v. City of New London Connecticut. Also, the Connecticut >>>constitution has a takings clause:

SEC. 11. The property of no person shall be taken for public
use, without just compensation therefor.

"Public use" doesn't mean "land the public will use" but that the stated >>>public purpose in state law fulfilled the constitutional requirement.

Worst SCOTUS decision in modern history.

That lets state legislatures off the hook who wrote those unjust laws in
the first place.

Government action chooses winners and losers, like a public road
being built (perhaps the right of way was acquired by taking) so that
a particular parcel of land may be developed or directing building >>>improvements at one public school but not another.

In New London, the development was never built.

The Institute for Justice represented a developer in a case in New York >>>in which the facts were even more egregious than in Kelo.

Bowers v. Oneida County Industrial Development Agency

Petition for certiorari denied on March 24, 2025

They intended to develop land across from a new hospital for a medical >>>office building. A competing developer had purchased a nearby parcel to >>>develop their own medical office building and wanted this parcel for a >>>parking lot so they had the government take it.

47 states have amended their eminent domain statutes to make it more >>>difficult to take property that doesn't directly benefit the public. >>>That's what Stevens said was the right way to handle the issue.

Why? Unlike issues like abortion, the federal Constitution directly >>addresses this issue in Amendment V. This isn't something that's properly >>the domain of the states.

The takings clause doesn't address all related issues such as eminent
domain. It doesn't address rights in property at all although the due
process clause in Amendment V does to a small extent. There's no "negative >taking" whether or not it's implied, that is, a taking is prohibited if
it's not for public use.

I keep forgetting to finish my thought here. I'm sure BTR1701 will still
tell me I'm wrong.

The takings clause of the Fifth Amendment

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation

In several Supreme Court cases, the power of eminent domain was not
created by the Constitution but was an "attribute of sovereignty" and "appertains to every independent government." Boom Co. v. Patterson
(1879). The takings clause is a limitation on sovereignty because
property owners won't bear the full burden of the taking, and are
entitled to just compensation. But it doesn't limit the power to "public
use".

Here are two law professors taking the position that "not for public use
even with just compensation" is unconstitutional, but don't cite a case.

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/amendment-v/clauses/634

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 06:41:03 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Bowers v. Oneida County Industrial Development Agency

Petition for certiorari denied on March 24, 2025

They intended to develop land across from a new hospital for a medical
office building. A competing developer had purchased a nearby parcel to >develop their own medical office building and wanted this parcel for a >parking lot so they had the government take it.

47 states have amended their eminent domain statutes to make it more >difficult to take property that doesn't directly benefit the public.
That's what Stevens said was the right way to handle the issue. New York >didn't.

That's an abuse - if the developer wanted the land let him make an
offer the usual way - the property holder has the right to any or all
profits from the sale - definitely NOT the state.

That's just "legalized" pickpocketing and I'm sure he paid plenty of
taxes along the way on the land in question.

About 30 years ago there was a suit in Toronto (where the plaintiff
won) where a property was expropriated for use as part of the Milton
airport which was then farmland but by the time of the suit was out of
use as airport land (obviously since the area had been developed to t
he point there were houses far closer than would have been considered
safe if it were actually a working civilian or military airport.

He won and the judge made that last point in his judgement - that in
Canada at least if a property is expropriated it has to be used for
the stated purpose - not something else and DEFINITELY not sold to a
third party for profit.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thu, 27 Mar 2025 17:31:41 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

Note that I'm in the minority on Usenet in never condemning Stevens'
decision in Kelo v. City of New London Connecticut. Also, the Connecticut
constitution has a takings clause:

SEC. 11. The property of no person shall be taken for public
use, without just compensation therefor.

"Public use" doesn't mean "land the public will use" but that the stated
public purpose in state law fulfilled the constitutional requirement.

Worst SCOTUS decision in modern history.

Well no - at some point somebody owned the land the Pentagon is built
on and while the citizens of the United States own that land, civilian
US citizens don't go there :)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Wed, 9 Apr 2025 18:43:26 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Here are two law professors taking the position that "not for public use
even with just compensation" is unconstitutional, but don't cite a case.

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/amendment-v/clauses/634

I hope Rhino can remember the case since I don't remember the cite but
there was a case in Canada where they expropriated a road allowance
across a farmer's land for a highway in such a way the remaining land
was no longer suitable for the type of farming that had been done for
decades on that land.

The farmer sued for purchase of the ENTIRE property and won with the
judge ruling that given the expropriation had made the remaining land unsuitable for the type of farming the land was being used for, the
government had the right to expropriate the entire piece of land but
not a portion thereof.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

Thu, 27 Mar 2025 17:31:41 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>:

Note that I'm in the minority on Usenet in never condemning Stevens' >>>decision in Kelo v. City of New London Connecticut. Also, the Connecticut >>>constitution has a takings clause:

SEC. 11. The property of no person shall be taken for public
use, without just compensation therefor.

"Public use" doesn't mean "land the public will use" but that the stated >>>public purpose in state law fulfilled the constitutional requirement.

Worst SCOTUS decision in modern history.

Well no - at some point somebody owned the land the Pentagon is built
on and while the citizens of the United States own that land, civilian
US citizens don't go there :)

Even a courthouse has stated hours in which business is done and it's
locked at other times. During business hours, the public does not have
access to offices or facilities used to hold prisoners, nor the jury
room during deliberations.

Public use and public access are not one and the same.

BTR1701 argued with me recently about the postal clause which I said
implies federal supremacy in highway design and use because he rejects implication without explicit constitutional language, but he's disagreed
with me about Kelo since it was issued even though eminent domain is not
a delegated powera The takings clause implies the power of eminent
domain, for if the power didn't exist, there couldn't be a just
compensation requirement together with the condemnation of property.

Eminent domain is a power of the king. The federal government inherited
this power even though it's not so stated. For those who oppose Kelo,
the Constitution implies a negative taking, that the power of eminent
domain must not be used without public use regardless of just
compensation.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)