The US Supreme Court will examine whether a private company can demand payment in exchange for not seizing private property.a fellow in Port Chester, NY, wishes to build a CVS on his property. the local gubmint has granted a monopoly to develop a swath of land that includes a portion of his property.
The developer, Gregg Wasser of G&S Port Chester, told Didden he'd have to pay $800,000 or give G&S a 50 percent stake in the CVS business. If Didden refused, Mr. Wasser said, he would have Port Chester condemn and seize his property and instead of a CVS he'd put a Walgreens drugstore on the site.as the fellow has refused to be extorted, the gubmint is attempting to seize his property as promised. the resulting countersuit has (un?)surprisingly made its way to SCOTUS after being thrown out of all lower courts. even the FBI refused to intercede.
the Kelo case makes law that "public use" includes public benefit. but does it follow that one private entity may extort profit from another entity that was not a party to the contract signed by the gubmint and developer?
i expect SCOTUS to find in fellow's favor in an attempt to make up for the Kelo fiasco, but i'm not holding my breath.