Can someone explain to me the massive dislike of Kelo v New London? I get that if you have a massive distrust in corporate entities, it seems like a horrible path to go down. But wouldn't that distrust lead to opposing basically any private contracting from the federal government? Apologies for my ignorance on the case.
Many freedom-lovers like myself see the ownership of private property (including land) as being important for securing liberty and security. You can (almost) do whatever you want in your own home, limited to 4 general categories: 1.) Law + Regulatory Enforcement 2.) Taxation 3.) Eminent Domain 4.) Escheat.
In Kelo, SCOTUS changed the test for category # 3 from public use (requiring the government to have a specific need to control the land) to public purpose (only requiring that the government benefit from the transaction in some way). This means its now OK for the government to take your house or mine or the Synagogue down the street. Family farms. Small Businesses. All the government has to do is show that the "anticipated" revenues from giving the land to Wal-Mart or Pep Boys or Monsanto are higher than if the previous owner stayed. Higher tax revenues from corporations getting whatever land they want "benefits" the public, so our ownership rights are greatly threatened. Eminent Domain isn't as sexy as Free Speech or guns or the death penalty, but it is still a bill of rights issue. And SCOTUS dropped the ball on Kelo.