[nobody9999]

>"[The Court held, 5–4, that the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development does not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment."

That case is from 2005. IIRC (and I did see it under construction) the WTC was built in the late 1960s/early 1970s, so I'm not sure how relevant that case might be.

Were there any lawsuits regarding eminent domain over the building of the WTC prior to its construction? I have no idea, but the 2005 case wouldn't even be relevant to the rebuild after 9/11.

[lonelygirl15a]

Such takings of property under eminent domain had happened before; it was not a new idea in 2005.

This case was the result of a suit against such takings. The suit failed, and the takings continued.

[nobody9999]

>Such takings of property under eminent domain had happened before; it was not a new idea in 2005.

>This case was the result of a suit against such takings. The suit failed, and the takings continued.

You're absolutely correct.

GP wondered aloud if eminent domain was warranted for access to the WTC site and if that wasn't related to the 2005 case cited.

I merely pointed out that since WTC was constructed in the late 1960s/early 1970s that that case cited was irrelevant to that question, as it was built 50 years before that case (not to mention that any rebuilding after 9/11 was still before the cited case was decided).

That case wasn't relevant to the discussion at hand. Was it rightly decided? I don't have all the facts and IANAL, so I don't know.

I wouldn't want the state to take my property if I didn't want to sell, although as I understand it, in the 2005 case, the plaintiff was offered fair-market value for their property. Not saying that nullifies the plaintiff's complaint (being forced to sell when they don't wish to do so), nor do I necessarily (again, IANAL and don't know the facts of the case) agree with the court's ruling.

That said, the case cited was irrelevant to the question of whether or not eminent domain was used properly in obtaining access to the property used as the site for the WTC.