Eminent Domain For Marriott

This past week the Supreme Couurt of the U.S. of A. made a stunning decision, one that would have caused the original 13 colonies to dump topsoil by the truckloads into Boston Harbor.

The Supreme Court decided that the state of Connecticut has the right to seize private property from one private entity and give it to another private entity under eminent domain.

The question here is the construction of a hotel and convention center and riverwalk for the public good. I find it difficult to argue that any houses seized for the purposes of allowing another private entity like a hotel chain to build and profit from that land in any way shape or form can be justified under eminent domain.

Scarily but not surprisingly the NY Times Editorial has come out in support of the decision:

"In a blistering dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor lamented that the decision meant that the government could transfer any private property from the owner to another person with more political influence "so long as it might be upgraded." That is a serious concern, but her fears are exaggerated. The majority strongly suggested that eminent domain should be part of a comprehensive plan, and Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing separately, underscored that its goal cannot simply be to help a developer or other private party become richer.
That is not the situation in New London. Connecticut is a rich state with poor cities, which must do everything they can to attract business and industry. New London's development plan may hurt a few small property owners, who will, in any case, be fully compensated. But many more residents are likely to benefit if the city can shore up its tax base and attract badly needed jobs." - NY Times June 24, 2005

So for more taxes, it is OK to steal from one private citizen and give to another. This is communism pure and simple.