Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Kelo: Even Worse Than It Seemed?

Could the circumstances in Kelo mean that the abuse of the eminent domain power is even greater than it seems? Consider this passage from the Supreme Court's opinion:
. . . . The city council also authorized the NLDC to purchase property or to acquire property by exercising eminent domain in the City's name. . . . [page 4]

What? The city itself did not exercise eminent domain, but "authorized" someone else? Who or what is NLDC?
. . . . respondent New London Development Corporation (NLDC), a private nonprofit entity established some years earlier to assist the City in planning economic development, was reactivated. . . . [page 2]
Now, this sounds like a PRIVATE ENTITY was exercising a city's eminent domain power. Does this make any sense? Why would the city not want to directly exercise it's power of eminent domain? Why would the city think it made sense to "authorize" a private entity to condemn the private property of others and then take it? For that matter, why didn't the city want to purchase the property itself?

No comments: