Eminent Domain for Openspace
The argument used in Kelo v. New London was that the city stood to expand its tax base, therefore garnering a public benefit, by taking private property from some citizens to make available to other private companies or citizens. Private developers would build business and population intense complexes that would garner the city more tax revenue, a supposed public good. Now some cities are threatening to use eminent domain to guarantee “open space” even though such open space will generate no such augmented tax revenues. Here is one case in Golden, Colorado where the city is attempting to do just that. It isn’t an isolated case there are others but the logic in this one is striking. Either you sell us your land whether you want to or not, or we will take it. Thus the reasoning put forth in Kelo is entirely circumvented here. A classic case of “unintended consequences”. Unless state legislatures rise to the occasion, which has happened in two states so far, private property as a civil right is a lost issue. Read the Colorado story here.