By a 5 to 4 vote, the court ruled that governments can take private property and even transfer the property to another private party if the first party is compensated.
Justice Stevens for the majority declined to second guess the city's considered judgements about the efficacy of its development plans.
The dissenting opinion was summed up by the following:
Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random,'' Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said in dissent. ``The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Scalia, and Justice Thomas were the other dissenting votes.
I must ask the liberal defenders of the downtrodden who was actually fighting for the little people in this case. I will answer my own question, those 'evil' conservatives that is who while the liberal justices like Stevens and Bader-Ginsberg voted for big business. The ruling only says the original owner is compensated which rewords the definition of eminent domain by removing the word 'just' before compensation.
I hope all you liberals are happy now, for the greater good and to pad someone's corporate bottom line, governments now have a better chance of stealing private property to build malls and golf courses while paying the original owner pennies on the dollar. This is not fair and it is not equitable. In fact I pray this rulling gets tossed out as soon as possible before more private property is stolen and given to some politician's corporate crony. There will be more family owned businesses destroyed all in the name of the public good, more private homes destroyed for the same reason until it is thrown out.
The social contract between the governed and the govern is quickly coming undone. And it was all done with good intentions.