Justices, 5-4, Back Seizure of Property for Development - New York Times

Justices, 5-4, Back Seizure of Property for Development - New York Times: "The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas."

The power of eminent domain is fascinating and continually controversial. I actually considered briefly looking at it for my final paper for my metropolitics class, focusing on the fact that the location where the Princeton Public Library now stands (on Witherspoon in a fairly central spot of the commercial center) was classified as a redevelopment zone. It's a big issue also with environmental restrictions on property. There is a fair amount of controversy about whether people should receive just compensation if their land is not "taken" but rendered unavailable for development because of environmental protections.

The FindLaw link on the New York Times site is pretty interesting as well, offering the Supreme Court decisions as well as pdfs of supporting amicus briefs. I notice that the American Planning Association is pretty active on this issue, logical considering the need to access properties to actualize comprehensive plans in many instances.

I do remember something in my Planning Theory class that Professor Angel mentioned that there has also been controversy about the City of New York using eminent domain to capture property in order to retain the New York Times within the city. Here's a discussion by CBS News on this. I notice that the Times didn't feel compelled to disclose that they've benefited from eminent domain in this way in the article...

Let's call it a day. Take care... And do leave comments! I welcome them. If this article is too boring, comment on salon or poplicks or something.