George:

On the Supreme Court New London case, except for the Daily Progress editorial, most newspaper accounts and TV summaries, by using words like "seize" without explanation , have given the impression that eminent domain does not require a government to pay a fair price for private properties taken in (arguably) the public interest. (I did see one mention, in a New York Times report, that in the New London case most of the affected property owners agreed to the payments. )

I don't recall, at 86 and without the necessary files readily available to me, the details of the Vinegar Hill taking that is so much cited here these days, but it would certainly be informative to all of us if someone would publish the amount paid here and how many of the bought properties were occupied by owners and how many owned by landlords.

Paul Saunier Jr. (electronic mail, June 29, 2005)