To: JeffA who wrote (51273 ) 6/28/2005 4:45:57 PM From: geode00 Respond to of 173976 I don't like it in theory either but they're just interpreting the constitution and precedent. "...It should be borne in mind that while the power of eminent domain, though it is inherent in organized governments, may only be exercised through legislation or through legislative delegation, usually to another governmental body, the power may be delegated as well to private corporations, such as public utilities, railroad and bridge companies, when they are promoting a valid public purpose. Such delegation has long been approved... Traditionally, eminent domain has been utilized to facilitate transportation, the supplying of water, and the like, 184 but the use of the power to establish public parks, to preserve places of historic interest, and to promote beautification has substantial precedent.... The values it represents are spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary. It is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well-balanced as well as carefully patrolled.'' For ''public use,'' then, it may well be that ''public interest'' or ''public welfare'' is the more correct phrase. Berman was applied in Hawaii Housing Auth. v. Midkiff, 187 upholding the Hawaii Land Reform Act as a ''rational'' effort to ''correct deficiencies in the market determined by the state legislature to be attributable to land oligopoly.''..."caselaw.lp.findlaw.com George Bush got his stadium, and his WEALTH, by using eminent domain. As I understand it, this ruling says that public use can be a privately-owned building or enterprise but you can't simply build someone's house in that place. I wonder if a private country club would qualify?heartland.org Here's Utah's rejection of the idea which, as I understand it, the SC said it deferred to.