In Forbes, law prof Richard Epstein writes “The Taking of Port Chester” about the Didden v. Village of Port Chester case. The facts of Didden are particularly egregious — in return for a private developer’s promise to withholdan exercise of eminent domain, a landowner was offered a choice: givethe developer $800,000, or a one-half interest in the owner’s planneduse of the property. The owner had plans to put in a CVS Pharmacy, but the developer convinced the Village that his plan to put in a Walgreen’s was better, and the Village agreed to use eminent domain to stop Mr. Didden. Professor Epstein writes:
It takes no financial wizardry to see that the expenses on both sidesof this high-priced battle are a social waste if all they do is replacea CVS pharmacy with a Walgreens. The Port Chester saga reveals theinstitutional flaw of modern takings law. Undue judicial deferencecreates large amounts of government discretion that in turn invitesself-interested actors to game the system.
Complete article here.