Even if you agree with Dean

That the constitution empowers theft (note i never said all eminent domain was bad.. i was saying this one was. And after talking to a few folks who said while this fit precident it was still wrong) there has been some good come out of the raw flaming outrage this has started

By STACEY STOWE
Published: June 25, 2005

HARTFORD, June 24 - A day after a ruling by the Supreme Court cleared the way for the city of New London to replace a residential neighborhood with a private development, Gov. M. Jodi Rell said on Friday that the Connecticut legislature "ought to consider" the state's eminent domain laws.

The outrage is turning some heads. And the Governor's isn't the only one.

"It's one that's been controversial not just in Connecticut but around the country." He added that Mrs. Rell is mindful of "the need to strike a proper balance between economic development concerns and the rights of property owners."

On Thursday, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat, first praised the court's decision as "vindicating long established eminent domain principles." He tempered his remarks on Friday, saying Connecticut's eminent domain law "deserves serious, critical scrutinizing" to ensure that it protects private property rights.

The Democratic party member and Attorney General said "yippie we won" but even he was falling in line that maybe we went to far.

Robert M. Ward, a Republican who is the House minority leader, said he was "deeply disappointed" by the court's ruling. Mr. Ward said he will introduce legislation in the next session of the General Assembly in February to protect property owners from losing their homes or businesses in the name of economic development.

Mr. Ward tried to get a similar bill adopted in the last legislative session. It would have removed the economic development provision from the state's eminent domain laws, allowing the government to seize only blighted property. He said Utah adopted a similar bill in March. The Connecticut bill died in committee.

I am betting that Mr. Ward's bill may end up doing better in committee. And hopefully other states take note of the discontent this started. If the various branches of government realize that the sleeping beast of "the electorate" can be stirred... it is a very good thing.

Mr. Ward said the federal ruling meant that modest homes and businesses can be uprooted for property that would add more money to city tax roles or that would be less of a burden on city services.

"It's just lower-middle-class folks losing property for some shiny new project," he said. "That's just plain wrong."

and that really is the bottom line