Do the people really benefit?
What people?
Is this just abuse of power?
Or is this in the best interest of the collective?

http://www.kcentv.com/news/c-article...id=1&nid=12276
Watch the video too.

I can see a point for eminent domain in the very very worst case scenario... like when we're being invaded... similar to the police ability to commandeer vehicles in emergency situations. But tthey should be very very grave situations and the measure should be temporary and involve adequate compensation.
The ways it has been used to steal private property in order to give to another private entity is sickening. It is up to the property owner whether to sell or not and to whom.
Since the situations where eminent domain would make sense are not likely at all in this day and age, I'd just assume get rid of the concept altogether.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

I think eminent domain is properly used for things like public facilities, roads, and the like. The "take it and give it to a developer" thing is a stretch.

The Texas Corridor is an interesting case. Seizing land for a public road is okay (but see below). Seizing land for development along the corridor is unacceptable. Seizing land for privately operated toll roads is murky, but I lean toward unacceptable.

Further, there's a very real question of whether the corridor is needed.

As an aside, I have a personal connection: the husband of a close friend is one of the lead engineers overseeing the project. He's a former MNDOT engineer who was hired away to work on it. They're one of about 12 Lutheran families in Texas.

__________________
Man up.

Unless we're actually being invaded, there is no possible excuse for government seizure of property (see the 5th Amendment). Property rights are the basis of all human rights, and unless the nation itself, along with principles such as property rights, is in imminent danger of collapse, no moral or legal justification can be given for eminent domain. These two quotes that sum up my stance on the issue:

"Ultimately property rights and personal rights are the same thing..." (Calvin Coolidge)

"You have to ask yourself, 'Who owns me? Do I own myself or
am I just another piece of government property?'" (Neal Boortz)

Now if only Neal Boortz would use that good sense about foreign policy...

__________________
"Some people complain about the system. The system is not good, so they can't do anything. It's an excuse. Freedom is in your heart." (Jin Xing)

Florida took some positive steps in regards to the possible abuses
of eminent domain. That was after the horror stories of the last few years that were coming from up north.

IMO eminent domain should only be used to further the public good.
It should be an absolutely transparent process, and those effected should quite literally be able to name their price for the supreme sacrifice and hideous disruption to their lives and homesteads. That would self regulate the process, and separate the needs from the wants.

All private acquisitions should be handled as a straight business transactions.
That is to say that using this power to acquire land for a highway that will be
turned over to a foreign company for use as a toll road is abuse, if not something much worse.