The Supreme Court decision in Kelo upholding the right of cities to use eminent domain for anything they choose was full of hidden assumptions about disinterested government officials earnestly seeking the bono publico.

Prof. Richard Epstein (a member of the IPCentral Academic Advisory Council) introduces you to the real world in a recent National Journal article:

The owners' property was condemned only because they refused to pay Wasser [the municipality's chosen developer] the $800,000 he demanded. Yet what public benefit would follow if they had succumbed to Wasser's threats by putting the big bucks in his pocket, not the village treasury? Wasser planned to build a Walgreens pharmacy on the property-exactly the same type of use as the original owners' planned CVS. The community gained nothing from the change in ownership, while having to bear all the costs of condemnation. Didden and Bologna in effect were forced to turn over all the value gained from their site evaluation to Wasser without so much as a dime in compensation. Kelo urged courts to defer to the supposed expertise of local governments in deciding which takings are needed to satisfy "public needs." But local governments are not using any expertise when they simply delegate the power of eminent domain to self-interested private parties such as Wasser who then piggyback for free on the business expenditures of others.