Once again we have to distinguish between the purpose for the authority to purchase property via eminent domain and how it is sometimes abused in practice. Unless one wishes to abolish government, and I recognize there are those on both ends of the political spectrum who favor this option, then from time to time the government will need to obtain land to accomplish appropriate purposes. Easy examples are police stations, firehouses, hospitals, airports and roads. Public parks are generally supported and other public functions such as libraries, municipal golf courses, town halls etc. are often welcomed. The problem is that land owners may not want to sell their property or may inflate the price knowing the identity of the purchaser and the leverage the seller holds given the need for the facility. Under these circumstances it has long been the consensus that the public good outweighs the individual property rights and, so long as a fair market price is paid for the land, the governing body may compel the sale. Note the two requirements; an appropriate need and a fair market price. As is often the case where fallible humans are involved, there are circumstances where abuse occurs either in determining whether the proposed use is appropriate or whether the compensation is proper. Incidentally, there are situations where sweetheart deals are made and the government overpays. So its not always the private land holder who gets hurt. But the point I am attempting to make is that the underlying rationale for the eminent domain power is not unreasonable and in most instances it has been used for the common good. That does not excuse its misuse which all good people should oppose. But merely because one dislikes a project does not make the use of eminent domain in connection with the project improper, unfair or corrupt.