HudsonHawk
I'll Lock Up
- Messages
- 4,382
I see economic development as used in this context as not being as important as a benefit for the good of the community as what will raise more revenue for the taxing bodies involved. If a strip mall built on your property will raise more in property tax and sales tax, the current property owners are well and truly screwed. Whether the courts have favored it or not, that is not right, and I can't believe that was the intent of the original law. It has only been in recent years that this tactic has been employed (at least in this area) whether because when tried before there was a backlash and too high of a political price to be paid or some other reason I am not aware of. In the end, I believe the benefit is directed toward government, and if there happens to be a "benefit" to the public of having a dollar store closer to your home, it's a bonus.
I'm not familiar with a case of anyone having their house taken in order to build a dollar store. Where has this happened?
As for using ED for economic development, there's a long history of it, from the Indian Removal Act to the building of the railroads to the "re-vitalization" of Times Square in the 1990's, the poster child for this tactics "success".
As for the intent of the "takings clause", it's pretty well accepted that the Fifth Amendment doesn't grant the government the right of ED, but rather places restrictions on what was understood to be a given, a power inherent in government itself.