mercedo's Journal: Private Property and Changing Notion of Publicity

Nowadays many facilities are owned by private sectors -not owned by government, local government, etc. so we cannot measure only from the viewpoint who owns the facilities but how those work on our daily life. For example many railways are private ownership, but their function is very very public. When someone's private property -for example land needed to be used or sacrificed for the benifit of public facilities happened to be owned by private one, those who own their property cannot oppose to thier property's being confiscated simply because those facilities happened to be owned by private. If it is highly public, those facilities are liable to be regarded as public regardless of their real ownership.

At the midst of capitalism, the age fewer and fewer what government actually own, the recent court ruling is along with the flow of our times.

Actually...

[Otter]

You're misunderstanding what the Kelo decision is about. There's no question that US law allows eminent domain takings for public purposes. This was an issue of a goverment taking property from one private party and giving it to another, on the grounds that it served public interest -- something that has always been understood to be illegal.

Re:Actually...

[mercedo]

something that has always been understood to be illegal.

If I were to take a devil's advocate, my reply to this ruling might be like this,...

Strange. This court ruling is apparently reactionary. In general court allows authorities to take legal possesions of private property in public use, but because this case is for private profit-making re-development plan, it is appalling. ....In socialist state many private sectors are liable to being used, confiscated for the benefit of the public or just being na