On a gut level, I'd agree. However, I'd note that the bill of rights was original intended to constrain the federal government, not the states, and the SCOTUS did essentially kick it back to the individual states to pass legislation prohibiting such takings if their citizens so desire.
OTOH, I wonder how the opposite ruling would effect revitalization of run down urban areas. Imagine a revitalization project where all but one or two property owners want to sell out, but those one or two holdouts are able to block the whole thing, perhaps just to take advantage of their leverage as the last ones to sign to extract a windfall at everyone else's expense.
Ever see the movie Waking Ned Devine? Remember the old witch who avoided signing until everyone else had, then, because they had to have her agreement or the whole thing fell apart, demanded a bigger share than everyone else?
Anyway, while I'm sure there are abuses where some politically connected developer makes a killing at the expense of a few homeowners with the help of local pols, I'm sure there are also situations where a valid public purpose is being served, but is more efficiently served with private involvement. Think of the many stadiums and coliseums that are built these days with private money, but for, at least in part, a public purpose. A blanket prohibition on takings that benefit private interests would make such projects much more difficult and expensive, harming public interest for the benefit of those one or two holdouts.
Point is, it's not such a simple issue as it seems.
Bob |
