I'm sure many of you have already heard that the today the Supreme Court ruled in favor of appropriating private property for private development. For anyone unfamiliar with the idea of eminent domain, it is a long established policy to seize private property when there is a direct public need (roads and schools are the typical examples). Apparently, lower courts who heard this case mostly held that appropriation just for (private) economic development is only justified when the property being seized is blighted. But the New London residents in question were fighting this action because the neighborhood "includes Victorian-era houses and small businesses that in some instances have been owned by several generations of families", all of which will now be replaced by "a riverfront hotel, health club and offices."

This decision is rather unsettling to me, mostly because I'm torn by several different legal intuitions. For one thing, I've driven through New London, and it is certainly an area that could use a major revitalization effort, even if the neighborhood in question is itself not part of the problem (although I really wouldn't know either way). I'm also not crazy about championing the cause of property rights, especially at the cost of the economic health of a city. In that respect, clearly John Paul Stevens (as well as Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, who constitute the majority in this decision) agrees with me:

''The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue,'' Stevens wrote ... ''[i]t is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area,'' he said.

Fine. But I can't help shaking the feeling that this is a terrible precedent, and that instances of exploiting this ruling by developers will far outnumer cases of positive development projects. Justice O'Connor is with me on this one:

''Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random,'' O'Connor wrote. ''The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.''

Preach it like it is, sister. And yet, something about agreeing with a decision on which Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas all joined just doesn't sit right with me. Maybe it's simply that the case here is private ownership of land vs. private development of that land, and that Stevens et al. simply believe that when the community stands to benefit (or at least, the local government has determined that it does), the law is on their side. In any case, I haven't yet read the decisions, but I do intend to, and I hope anyone else who is interested will do the same.