Reply #1: I'll read the whole opinion

[Poppyseedman]

Though I am not a lawyer, the opinion is a very disturbing ruling.

Basically the court took out the "Taking cause" of the fifth. New rules were applied.


"Rather, it has embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as “public purpose.”
See, e.g., Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112, 158–164. Without exception, the Court has defined that concept broadly, reflecting its longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments as to what public needs justify the use of the takings power"

Your local "yahoo" city councilman now has more rights than you to your property if they feel like your land can serve their ideas better.


"The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including,
but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue. As with other exercises in urban planning and development, the city is trying to coordinate a variety of commercial, residential, and recreational land uses, with the hope that they will form a whole greater than the sum of its parts."


Gee, Most of the appreciable benefits will be going to Pfizer Inc. which is private not public good, not the community

Here's the opinion in PDF

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20051201/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf

SCOTUS link

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04slipopinion.html


Our side SC judges did this