Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
But doesn't this broad reading of public use eviserate the takings clause? Seems to me that if this qualifies, then there are few limits on the Gs right to take the property. I think it would be different if the G wanted to take the property so that they could build a public hospital. Here they are taking from one set of citizens and giving to another, and the transfer of property only benefits the public indirectly, rather than directly.
Plus, the stories of the current owners are pretty sad. A couple of them were born in those houses and their families had lived there over 100 years.
|
What's the difference between this and taking land for urban redevelopment? Does your analysis apply there as well?
