The backlash continues

You remember Kelo, the now-infamous Supreme Court decisison that made it clear the court was not going to halt the drift toward public-good taking of land as opposed to the public-use taking clearly spelled out in the Constitution (what do you think about that, Judge Alito?) Well, things aren't going too well for the hope of New London officials to kick out some private-property owners and replace them with ones who could provide more tax revenue. As the article notes, "What firm wants to locate to a piece of property that will long be associated with the taking of people's homes?" It is no exaggeration to say that Kelo is among the most vilified court decisions in history.

Here in Indiana, meanwhile, a bill has been filed to tighten up the state's eminent-domain rules. It doesn't seem to deal with one of the major defects of the current law, which is that the requreiment for taken land to be "blighted" is so vague that it's meaningless. But it does put more requirements on the government takers and level the playing field for property owners a little. And if the taker doesn't use the land for the specified purpose within a set time, all rights are forfeited. That provision would have been nice for the owners of Belmont Beverage in downtown Fort Wayne. The land was taken through eminent domain for the purpose of erecting a hotel near the expanded Grand Wayne Convention Center. The city later decided it wanted to put the hotel somewhere else but thinks the Belmont parcel would be nice to hold onto for some other use.