20 questions

Can anyone explain to me the Supreme Court's latest decision?

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights.

The 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

Even more strangely, it was the typically (socially) liberal judges who carried this decision — one that seems to pander to big biz.

I'm not really concerned with political implications. I'm really curious about one question: Isn't this just unfair?

Maybe my concept of private property is incorrect, but unless it was something like a road or other potentially legitimate benefit to the public, what's yours is yours, or so I thought.

(Also, on a practical level, if cities supposedly needs the additional tax revenue these businesses will generate — and that is somehow supposed to constitute a public benefit worthy of seizing private, non-"blight" property — I mean, wouldn't the first step be: stop cutting companies tax breaks to get them to move there?)

Am I the only one that feels a steady encroachment of sanctioned, legal game-rigging that more and more benefits business over the interests of the average citizen? Or have things always been this way and I'm just naive?