In an article on the continuing backlash against the Supreme Court's controversial decision in Kelo v. New London, which allowed states and localities to use their eminent domain powers to take private property for any "vaguely defined" public purpose, such as higher tax revenues, The Economist correctly explains why the Takings Clause's just compensation requirement is an inadequate constraint on government's power to get in bed with private developers:
Those who are uprooted under eminent domain must be given fair compensation. But if they have no choice but to sell, it may be hard to determine what a fair price for their property is. Developers who know the sellers have to sell will surely be tempted to ?lowball? their offers.
Precisely, as I explained in my TCS column on Kelo. The Economist goes on to make an apt note on the politics of eminent domain:
What matters is whether the plan represents such a pressing public good that it is reasonable to use the state's vast coercive power to execute it. For most Americans, Interstate-95 passes muster, but yuppie condos don't.
I think that's probably about right. On the other hand, my guess is that Grover Norquist is wildly over optimistic when he claims, according to The Economist that:
Twenty years from now, people will look back at Kelo the way people look back at Roe v Wade [the 1973 Supreme Court decision that barred the states from banning abortion].
Yeah, right.
