[Still Thinking]

But now look what happens under the approach favored by many of the Kelo critics. Suppose that a city wants to build a sports stadium on a plot of land that includes some parcels held by owners who do not want to sell at the prevailing market price. Everybody concedes that if the stadium will be owned by the city, then its construction constitutes a public use that will support the power of eminent domain. But, under the rule of the Kelo critics, if the city wants the stadium to be built and owned privately, then the use is no longer "public." Does that make any sense?

The author's choice of examples runs into a logical conundrum, but it doesn't illustrate his point. It doesn't prove that Kelo is at its heart, libertarian in nature. The municipality has no business being involved in the building of a sports stadium whether it operates the stadium directly or not. A sports stadium is not a true municipal use. If there is sufficient demand for local sporting events to support a stadium, some developer will come along and PAYING MARKET PRICE FOR THE LAND HE NEEDS with no intervention from the city, erect the stadium and make money. If the percentage of locals who would support a team is too low, he won't. Too freakin bad.

[BedRock]

But now look what happens under the approach favored by many of the Kelo critics. Suppose that a city wants to build a sports stadium on a plot of land that includes some parcels held by owners who do not want to sell at the prevailing market price. Everybody concedes that if the stadium will be owned by the city, then its construction constitutes a public use that will support the power of eminent domain. But, under the rule of the Kelo critics, if the city wants the stadium to be built and owned privately, then the use is no longer "public." Does that make any sense?

First off, the meaning of "original intent" needs to be rediscovered by the Supremes. Secondly, if a "city wants to build a sports stadium on a plot of land that includes some parcels held by owners who do not want to sell at the prevailing market price," then it depends on how bad the city "wants" the land. Notice the usage of the word WANT, and not the word NEED. A vast difference, so if it is wanted bad enough, the city will pay what ever it is worth in the homeowners eyes, not vice-versa. The afterthought of selling to a private individual is mute. Getting past the first hurdle is a constitutional one that should be looked at with great interest and concern.

There is not one but two clauses in the Fifth Amendment concerning an American citizens property rights. Both of these were overlooked in the Kelo case.