http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/3132006_Eminent_Domain_Legislation.aspWhen the Supreme Court, in June 2005, upheld a lower court's decision allowing the City of New London, Connecticut to proceed in seizing property from private owners to facilitate a redevelopment project by private developers, it set off a firestorm thatenCommunityServer 2008 SP2 (Build: 31106.96)http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/3132006_Eminent_Domain_Legislation.asp#11937Mon, 27 Mar 2006 11:00:00 GMT2bb7a989-b681-446d-a7f2-bd5f0562f228:11937EvanI completely agree with Ben from above. Private property owner should have the final say.<div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=11937" width="1" height="1">http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/3132006_Eminent_Domain_Legislation.asp#11938Mon, 20 Mar 2006 11:00:00 GMT2bb7a989-b681-446d-a7f2-bd5f0562f228:11938BenI believe that a private property owner should have the final say on whether or not he has to sell his land for anything, even with roads, goverment housing, etc. Or if not the goverment should have to pay the owner double the value of the land or residence, just because it has an emotional attachment to it not just a dollar amount.<div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=11938" width="1" height="1">http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/3132006_Eminent_Domain_Legislation.asp#11940Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:00:00 GMT2bb7a989-b681-446d-a7f2-bd5f0562f228:11940PeterHi Eminent domain can make sense for instance, when government needs land for a road. What doesn&#39;t make sense is that the Kelo decision allows land to be taken from one owner for use by another private party. All the best, Peter <div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=11940" width="1" height="1">http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/3132006_Eminent_Domain_Legislation.asp#11941Tue, 14 Mar 2006 11:00:00 GMT2bb7a989-b681-446d-a7f2-bd5f0562f228:11941John DoeThe League of Cities and Towns would carp about how these bills that would handcuff local governments. There is no compassion in government, if there were there would less complaining from those people that have had their property confiscated for a sports complex or a high rise, those have no relevance for the public good. Whereas road right of way or bridge needed does. <div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=11941" width="1" height="1">http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/3132006_Eminent_Domain_Legislation.asp#11935Mon, 13 Mar 2006 11:00:00 GMT2bb7a989-b681-446d-a7f2-bd5f0562f228:11935DaveYes there are people who like eminent domain: developers who don&#39;t have to pay as much money for property and local governments who will reap the taxes from the new development. But the property owner is the loser. He does not have the resourses to battle the government.<div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=11935" width="1" height="1">http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/3132006_Eminent_Domain_Legislation.asp#11934Mon, 13 Mar 2006 11:00:00 GMT2bb7a989-b681-446d-a7f2-bd5f0562f228:11934AnonymousIs there anyone that thinks eminent domain is good or anyone that actually thinks eminent domain should be legat? There must be some good uses of eminent domain.<div style="clear:both;"></div><img src="http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/aggbug.aspx?PostID=11934" width="1" height="1">