Dave,

Actually, to be precise, what they are doing is forcing you to sell it
whether you want to or not. If you don't agree that the price is fair
value, then you can take that up in the courts as well.

However, I agree that the change to the commonly accepted meaning of
"public use" is a really bad precedent, and should be re-adressed by congress.
Don't forget that even our constitution can be amended by congress and
the state legislatures if there is enough popular pressure. Our problem
as a society is getting people to turn off the TV long enough to get involved
(sigh).

Did you see the thread about the bills introduced recently that would force
the NWS to limit free access to weather information? Talk about a bad
precedent!! In addition to reading about it here, I also read about it in
my local (Austin) newspaper yesterday.

Don W.

Dave wrote:

Wrong premise, Vito. Until this ruling there was no common understanding
that taking one man's property and giving it to another private individual
because you prefer the use he intends to make of it has not been regarded as
equivalent to "public use."