Four parts of eminent domain: the public-policy amicus brief
As the Supreme Court considers the takings case Kelo v. New London, which commentators on all sides are calling potentially the most important in the last fifty years, I find it remarkable that:
Both sides are fighting the wrong fight on the wrong terrain.
“What do you mean, we’re fighting the wrong fight???”
Judging by the briefs I’ve read, plaintiffs and defendants are jousting over the ‘wrong’ question:
“Is urban renewal a valid ‘public use’ authorizing eminent domain?”
When they should be tussling the right question:
“In urban renewal, what is the right measure of ‘just compensation’?
The following four posts spell out the theory, in 4,700 words and a dozen or so images:
Part 1: The case for land use and eminent domain
Part 2: When is taking justified?
Part 4: A new theory of ‘just compensation’
P S The post is in four parts because Blogjet and I don’t see eye to eye; with luck, I will be able to clean it up over the next few days.
