SCOTUS greenlights the governmental "taking" of your property for your wealthier or more connected neighor's benefit or "Property" is just another name for something that is yours unless and until the government decides that someone else can use it better.

Professor Bainbridge posts on today's Supreme Court ruling affirming that the government - cities, states and the federal government - may use the power of eminent domain to benefit private economic development.

In other words, if a developer convinces a city that his strip mall will benefit the economy of the city, and if you home stands in the way of his development, the city can use its power of eminent domain to take your property.

Terrific.

Frankly, though, this is nothing new. I was peripherally involved in a case where a low income apartment building in downtown Fresno was condemned by the City of Fresno to provide space for the construction of a parking structure for one of the largest law firm in Fresno. (That case also involved the use of money earmarked for "low income housing" to help pay for the parking structure. So, ironically, federal and state money set aside to provide housing for low income housing was used to demolish low income housing.)

The project was justified by the City as a key part of Fresno's perennial efforts to "revitalize" downtown. The argument was that the parking structure was needed as an inducement to keep the large law firm downtown and that the law firm was a substantial contributor to the economic vitality of downtown Fresno. The argument had some merit. It was certainly not irrational and while a Superior Court judge had some difficulties with the City's use of eminent domain, he nonetheless upheld the condemnation on the grounds that the City was not acting arbitrarily or irrationally.

Within three years of the construction of the parking structure, the law firm left downtown for a more prestigious north Fresno address.

Update: Here is a round-up on this latest judicial misfire.

Still More: The "progressive Catholic guys at Mirror of Justice are discussing the decision from a Catholic jurisprudential perspective. I like this observation:

So, it strikes me that the regime approved in Kelo -- i.e., one in which one's ability to use and enjoy rightfully owned property is subject to the government's continuing belief that some other person's use would not be more beneficial, economically -- is difficult to square with "respect for the person as such."

So, "property" is just another name for something that is yours until the government decides that you can't use it as well as someone else.

Incidentally, whatever happened to they "individual mystery" which was at the heart of our Constitution's evolving concept of liberty? You think a child isn't human until she is born and I disagree? Ah well, that's just one of the imponderable questions of value. You think that sodomy involves an unreasonable disease vector and I don't? Well, ditto, and keep your values out of the bedroom, buddy.

But, jeepers, make it the question about whether your property is "better" as a home for your family or a tattoo parlor in a strip mall as part of an urban redevelopment project and suddenly 3 out of 5 City Councillors can unravel the deepest mysteries of aesthetics and value.