@jolly said in "Kelo was wrong then, and it's wrong now":
"The Constitution's text, the common-law background, and the early practice of eminent domain all indicate 'that the Takings Clause authorizes the taking of property only if the public has a right to it, not if the public realizes any conceivable benefit from the taking,'" Thomas wrote. "The majority in Kelo strayed from the Constitution to diminish the right to be free from private takings."
Thomas is right. Urban blight can be addressed in other ways, besides seizure under eminent domain.
For instance, on a small scale...The small town closest to where I live does not have overgrown, nasty vacant lots. There is a city ordinance specifying how high the grass can get, before the town sends the property owner notice that they have seven days to get it cut, Failure to cut the lot, means the city will mow it for you. And send you a bill. Not a cheap bill.
What happens? Vacant lots get cut pretty regularly or the city will pile up enough charges and will seize the property for monies owed. Works pretty well...Property owners don't want to keep sinking money into something that makes them no money, but costs them money. Property either gets developed or sold.
If the city seizes a piece of property for monies owed, they either try to sell it to a developer with the clause that it must be developed within a certain time frame, or for several parcels in the poorer part of town, they have partnered up with Habitat and built houses on those lots.
+1. In this case I agree with Thomas and the system Jolly described works for me.