[mcstumper]

I agree 100%. There is no doubt in my mind that private property was one of the main things protected by the writers of the constitution. Immenent Domain, except in real public interest situations, should be illegal. Situations where the private sector stands to gain are not how the system is supposed to work.

I really wish someone locally would step to the plate in that respect, but with the pending north end projects, there is zero chance of that happening.

Those clowns who own that property on Trail Creek are getting exactly what they wanted. They sit on some of the most valuable property in the City, treat it worse than a sewer and then just wait until the community (via our representative government) is forced to step in and do something about it. They then cry about how their constitutional rights are being trampled on, all as a ploy to make sure they guilt us into paying more than top dollar.

When the railroads were being built in the late 1800's, they were all privately owned. Yet they still were able to use emminent domain to acquire the property they needed. Emminent domain is not always about public use, but it can also be about providing the most public good. Railroads did that by facilitating commerce from coast to coast. Trail Creek redevelopment does that by increasing tax revenue and improving the visual appeal of the North End.

[Roger Kaputnik]

The Federal gov't essentially gave the land to the RR, they did not have to purchase acre after acre for market price.

Eminent domain (finally spelled right) IS about taking land for public use, not public good as defined by developers. SSider quoted the Constitution to this point.