Last June this was a case before the SCOTUS and came down to a 5-4 decision which upheld a city's right to take private property for public betterment (including economic development) -- Kelo v. City of New London
It was interesting because it was one of the cases where O'Conner sided with Scalia and Thomas (in the dissenting opinion).
Here's a link to the decision:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdfNeedless to say, this is a wedge issue for many. The interesting thing about it coming up in Iowa is that it is such a non-issue here. That is, the Castle Coalition, an anti-eminent domain think tank/action group, states that Iowa has had very few condemnations and threats of condemnation for private development in the past five years. They only found one area of private condemnations (Dubuque, waterfront redevelopment -- 8 property owners since 1990).
Probably the only controversy involved in this was that in 1999 the state legislature passed a law which effectively strengthened the rights of all Iowa property owners to more information about possible land grabs. Then, one year later, the legislature amended/modified their own law so that the new protections would only apply to agriculture owners.
So... mostly, here in Iowa, the eminent domain laws have only touched businesses -- particularly industrial businesses along Dubuque's waterfront area. (Although there was a case in 2001 (?) in which a realty company sued the City of Cedar Rapids for taking without notice -- the courts upheld CR in both appeals. I'm not sure if there is another appeal underway.)
If he is still there, a good person to talk to about this subject is Erin Coyle at the Dubuque Telegraph-Herald. He covered a lot of the controversy which followed the waterfront economic development project.
Here's my understanding -- eminent domain is very rarely used to oust mom and pop out of their family homestead. It is often used, however, in older industrial areas (brownfield, etc.) to allow cities to reclaim otherwise spoiled lands and re-work them into new economic development opportunities -- parks, housing, roads, transportation (such as airports,wharfs) and other use.
This is a hot-button issue for the GOP because -- just like gay marriage -- it is one of those things where the group can point at one or two instances where the law was used in a questionable manner. (Maybe destroying an older small business area to make way for a new industrial complex.) Pointing to these very few cases gives the right an emotional push. After all, how many of us like the idea that the government could just take away our land/property without so much as pre-notification and hearing? Once you wipe away the emotions, however, the truth is a stark contrast as to what's happening (although the GOP argues it won't be a contrast for long if we don't gain tighter control and set further limits).
Perhaps the best avenue is somewhere in the middle. Property owners should be notified if a government is considering taking of land/property. The government should be able to enact and enforce nuisance laws which require a certain upkeep of all property within their limits (as to prevent areas of blight which typically are the subject of eminent domain attempts).
Anyway... this is getting too long and I'm beat and should head to bed. Sorry for rambling.