Eminent Domain was set up to ensure that the expansion of America, states, counties and cities would not be interferred with by private landowners and businesses intent on being greedy or just hardheaded by giving the government the power to take over certain land for the good of the many as opposed to the will of the few or the one.

OK..I get it. Some public projects are very important to the growth and financial security of a given area. I had a friend who lost his place to eminent domain when Hwy. 58 pushed into Bakersfield. He had an old one bedroom shack in a field between Mt. Vernon and Oswell. He was given notice and a fair market price and went on his way. He liked his place, but had no real qualms about the whole thing. He moved moved on and the good of the people was served.

That's all well and good, but the definition of the "good of the people" seems to have changed these days. Interstates and public works projects are vital to the continued survival and security of cities, etc, but another strip mall? Privately owned condos? I'm not the one to say what should and shouldn't stay or go, but i DO think there should be more discussion of the limits of such authority. I don't think local deevelopers should be involved in any way in such discussion either. Thre have no concern about anything but filling their pockets, which is fine once the decisions have been made for the right reasons, by the right people.

In cities across America sweeping changes to the landscape have been made in the name of attracting more business, and thus tax dollars, to a city's fold. Many of these changes have had life altering effects on people who have been uprooted in the name of local economic expansion in the form of malls and condos, some of which failed even after they were built. Now the people who gave up their homes get to drive by the darkened, broken, empty storefronts that stand where their family home once did.

I get the instances where a block of run down, overgrown dwellings are taken over, but that's not always the case. Sometimes it's just a prime location a city decides it wants to develop for nothing more than the attractive area and it's commercial real estate value sa it was with New London, Ct. in 2005. With the vague and broabased laws of eminent domain, the good of the people is sometimes overshadowed by the good of the local, state or federal coffers.

Now there is a bill before the assembly that would limit these powers so they would only apply to public projects. I think this is a good thing. If a developer wants to expand into a new area, let him do it with his wallet and not his buddies on a city council or some othet government board. The government has enough(too much?)power as it is at all levels. Let's take this small measure back. Call or write your representatives and voice your concern on this issue. Right or left, it could affect us all. It's not alot, but it's a start!