Eminent domain: winners and losers

Re “It’s open season on private property,” Opinion, July 27

So a city thinks certain property would better serve the community if turned into high-income dwellings? Fine, so what’s stopping the owners of those properties from taking bids from builders, looking at their plans, choosing which builder they want to work with and getting in on the action and profit?

They can then take that profit and purchase a very nice home elsewhere or work a deal to live in one of the new dwellings free and clear.

There is no law, and should be no law, that says that the owners of those properties can’t be the ones to benefit from redevelopment.

Leslie Weller

Northridge

*

Rosa Brooks, a self-described liberal, derides the “bozos” in her neighborhood who keep signs on their front lawns with conservative or patriotic messages. Yet Brooks, whose Op-Ed article is a diatribe against the recent Supreme Court decision allowing cities to seize private homes in the name of “public use,” fails to inform her readers that it was the liberal wing of the court that ruled in favor of public use, while the court’s conservative bloc squarely opposed it. Perhaps Brooks should stop attacking her conservative neighbors and listen to them instead. Of course, that would require having an open mind, something sadly lacking in liberals these days.

David Ceron

El Segundo

*

I’m curious about the outrage over the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding eminent domain. This country was built on eminent domain, just ask Native Americans.

Ritas Smith

Torrance