Kelo from afar

Since this is my first post, I shall be brief. As I recall, Thomas More mentioned that his last remarks made from the scaffold would also be brief. I have followed the Kelo contributions made so far with great interest. The quality and diversity of insights have been rich and enlightening. I believe that some have picked up on how members of the commercial world have started suggesting that the term "public use" might have an expansive definition. In other words, does any developer's plan for renewal or development that can be a good thing for some but has the additional effect of displacing current residents who may be poor trump the latter group's interest as a public interest in housing for the marginalized? A developing and related concern is this: if the Kelo decision opens the door to an expansive view of "public use" that in turn decreases the amount of housing for the poor or those on restricted income, how does Catholic Legal Theory respond to their need for places to live and call home? In ascertaining an appropriate meaning of "public use," should the interests of those with few, if any, economic means be neglected? There may well be other concerns that will emerge as a result of Kelo, but the one just identified in this posting appears to be coming of age rather quickly.

Thank you so much for having me on board. I hope to be a regular contributor to MOJ in spite of my new Roman situs.  RJA sj