"Sometimes the poor are difficult to digest"

Check out this, this, and this about current Supreme Court case Kelo vs. City of New London on the question of eminent domain. Does government have the right to force you to sell your land for any other reason than actual public use (roads, etc)? The case involves a small band of holdouts who don't wish to give up their river-view homes to the city, which wants the land for a huge multi-use developement because (depending on who you believe) a: they crave the increased tax revenues it would provide, or b: they want to placate Pfizer, who has a big research facility nearby, or c: both.

To demonstrate the thinking of some parties on this matter, consider this by a Professor of Urban Planning and Design: "It could be argued that a neighborhood of single-family houses is simply underperforming property," Kayden said in answer to a question. "It doesn't generate very much revenue compared with other uses. Consequently, one might label it as blight."

I got interested in this while researching a snippet I heard on NPR about Costco's policy of overt or tacit collusion with local authorities in eminent-domaining current owners off the land they want to build stores on. And, in one case in California, attempting to eject a competitor from their adjacent retail space. Oh, niiiiiiiiiiice ...

And I really enjoyed shopping at Costco, too. Perhaps I'll sit on my blighted deck under a blighted cherry tree and watch my blighted grass grow, instead.