[goldstategop]

Its right there in the Constitution.

Private property can’t be taken for a private end. It must be for a public good.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Private investment with the revenue it would raise was taken to be a public good. There could be arguments around the fact finding in Kelo, which took an empty promise as being tantamount to a public good (the facility never was built and it all went to waste).

[digger48]

Something that was brought up in a recent fight here in central IN over Industrial Wind Turbine farms was that it wasn’t unreasonable to foresee a time where government could force them on communities.

Even though it was German owned energy companies reaping the subsidies and selling the juice for their own profit, they could just take the land the way they do for power lines.

(BTW...we beat JUWI and sent them packing. And the local pols that approved a previous E-on farm were all primaried out)

[cornelis]

Like bicycle paths.

[1010RD]

Define public “good”?

[nathanbedford]

You are quite right, the federal Constitution prohibits taking of property except for a public purpose and upon just compensation. The questions arise, what is a public purpose and how much compensation is just?

The Kelso decision held that the mere anticipated gain by municipality of tax revenues is enough to qualify for a public purpose. This is a rather radical departure from previous practice because it broadly expands the definition of public purpose. We're not talking about building roads bridges or schools, we are talking about private enterprise having its way against property owners because it can enlist the aid of some governmental entity with condemnation powers because. It is not hard to conceive of situations in which billionaire entrepreneurs can influence municipal governments and entice them with sugarplum visions of increased tax revenues. The balance of power has certainly shifted away from the private property owner.

This potentially alters our entire concept of private property making it all subject to being taken away at any time for any reason that the government conceives of that will increase its revenues and no doubt for other reasons which might be concocted. This is not merely a matter of the odd property holder being discomfited, this is a whole new way of organizing our capitalist economy. If billionaires who have access to capital can manipulate governments against property owners, the future is not one of liberty if liberty is dependent upon property.

As to Trump's assertion that property owners are compensated at multiple times the value of their property, this is simply not true in the general case. If it is not agreed upon, these matters are litigated and usually submitted to a jury. There is no guarantee that the homeowner will be enriched in the process but even if he is fully compensated, he has lost control of his property, he has lost a degree of liberty.

[CA Conservative]

Private property can’t be taken for a private end. It must be for a public good.

WRONG! The 5th Amendment says nothing about the "public good". That is the lie liberals like to use to justify taking private property to give it to their donors like Trump. The 5th Amendment says that the taking must be for public USE - such as roads, government facilities, parks, public libraries, etc. A casino or shopping mall is not a "public use".