Not trying to bore you--but one more KELO thing

This Kelo thing really has me bothered...I know--I know, there is no substantial change, the woman is going to get paid for her property and the government entity is going to take it and that's that---but the point is that it is ENTIRELY different than previous use of emminent domain.

Prior to Kelo, the City of ABC-town can come to John Q Homeowner and say--"we want to build a new courthouse here and the new tri-level freeway will also be coming through your yard--so we are going to need to take your house---here is the fair market value of your home--get out."

That's "public use," and that is acceptable under the constitutional definitions of emminent domain. See my previous post "you reap what you sow."

After Kelo, the City of ABC-Town can come to John Q Homeowner and say---"we want this private land developer to build a Walgreens-Costco-Lowe's-Jiffy Lube-Barnes & Noble right here where your house is. (The City will gain more tax revenue from them that it will from one piddly homeowner) Here is the fair market value---get out."

See the difference? Apparently Supreme Court Justices are so confused by emanations and penumbras that they can't figure out that the latter example is government seizure for PRIVATE use and the first example is government seizure for PUBLIC use.