According to this:
"http://www.reason.com/interviews/bullock.shtml
What's important to point out is that even the majority admitted that state courts are free to interpret their own provisions in a manner that's more protective of property rights. Thankfully, every state Constitution has prohibitions against private takings and a requirement that takings be for public use. And, only six states have held that economic development condemnations are Constitutional. Nine have held that they are not. And most states have not addressed it. "
So, which ones are they?
That significantly narrows down the choice of retirement locales?
C-
"http://www.reason.com/interviews/bullock.shtml
What's important to point out is that even the majority admitted that state courts are free to interpret their own provisions in a manner that's more protective of property rights. Thankfully, every state Constitution has prohibitions against private takings and a requirement that takings be for public use. And, only six states have held that economic development condemnations are Constitutional. Nine have held that they are not. And most states have not addressed it. "
So, which ones are they?
That significantly narrows down the choice of retirement locales?
C-