I was pretty hard on several small business sites for their lack of coverage on the Kelo Decision. After reading what Inc.com put out, I should have kept my mouth shut. I keep thinking that my perception that Inc has taken a "left" turn is just an overreaction on my part (not uncommon these days). But read on what Inc.com has to say:
While many vilify the ruling for weakening individual property rights, which they believe are the cornerstone of economic growth, others argue that small and medium privately held businesses are often the beneficiaries of urban redevelopment plans that depend on the use of eminent domain -- the power to take private property for public use.
I have three questions. Who are the "others" that argue that small and medium enterprises will be the benefit from this decision? What data do that have that small businesses are "often" the beneficiaries of government land grabs? And, who makes the decision on what small businesses should have their property taken away and on what basis are these decisions to be made?
They go on to state the following:
The perspective of local business owners affected by eminent domain is likely to be more nuanced.
I certainly don't think that this is the case for small business owners. Property rights are a fundamental building block of the free enterprise system that small business owners hold near and dear to their hearts. I can't imagine any of them saying that in this case it is alright for you to take away my property for someone else's business. How can such a black and white issue be nuanced, as Kelo crossed a clear line into a new era of expanded government powers?
