Sounds like he did OK if the state is still paying him! I worked in a medium large City Urban Development Department for 10 years and saw eminent domain in practice. The constitution does not forbid the taking of private property, rather forbids the taking of private property without just compensation. In most cases the people who had their property siezed received more than just compensation. Some of them received several times over what the land or property was worth. Knowing in advance that an Urban Renewal project was in the works I have seen greedy investors buy up undersized lots for back taxes or for practically nothing just so they could collect ten times what the property was worth when it was bought up for the project. Those guys are the crooks or the wolves in sheep's clothing. Eminent domain is a good thing as long as it is not abused. The abuse is the problem, not the process. The national media has made an example of a small church that lies within a corridor improvement district in my Small town. They (media) has made it seem that the City is taking away the church without offering just compensation. When in fact, the Citiy has only made its first offer and there has been no negotiations regarding a settlement yet! There has not even been the slightest mention of eminent domain except in the press. The area itself is a slum and ghetto and has been an eyesore and a trap for poor blacks for years. This is the first chance the persons who live there have ever had to escape the poverty and move into nice homes in integrated neighborhoods. Most of them are very pleased. Two other churches have already settled their buy out and are satisfied the City did right by them. The only remaining church is the holdout and the one causing the premature judgement by the media. Well, off my soapbox, just a few thoughts about the current situation of eminent domain. Monty
LOL
