Legalized Theft: Eminent Domain And Redevelopment

PRIVATE property for PRIVATE use.
In fact, one of the most basic responsibilities of government is to protect private property. On a direct level, we still hold to that; if a thief steals my car or breaks into my home and helps himself to my possessions, the law will punish him for violating my property rights. Now, suppose my neighbor decides he wants my land for a new project of his. Can he force me off my property, and confiscate it? No. What if several dozen of my neighbors decide they want my land for a joint project. Can they collectively force me out? No. They can offer to purchase it, hound me at the store, yell at my kids and socially ostracize me, but they can't take my property from me without my consent. My property is just that -- mine. And the law protects me in that right.
Now, a scary thought. Suppose it is the government itself, by constitutional law required to protect my property rights, who suddenly hungers for my land. Can they take it?
Yes. If, that is, the land is to be used for public use. If they're putting

 
in a freeway, and my house just happens to be in the middle of the new road's path, the government has a constitutional right to take my property, paying a reasonable price for it.
But suppose I have a large and powerful neighbor-say, a major casino-and they want my land. Can they take it? Or force me to sell? No. Only the government has the authority to force me out -- and then, only if the property is for "public use," as clearly written in both the national and state constitutions.
The founding fathers regarded property ownership as a right given to individuals from God, an "unalienable right," and carefully wrote into the Constitution safeguards to insure government protected, not plundered, private property. The founders were well aware of several centuries of government abuse by both English Monarchs and Parliament of private property ownership, and were determined to prevent any such legalized thievery from happening here.
But compare: The Reno Redevelopment Agency [The Reno City Council, using a phony front to conceal and indemnify] has approved a plan to expand the City's "eminent domain" policy. The new policy is described in a Reno newspaper: "Previously, the policy

for eminent domain was limited to property needed for public projects on the [Truckee] river, abandoned buildings and new downtown housing projects. The new policy is tied to a "developer incentive" called ownership participation agreements, WHICH GIVE A DEVELOPER THE RIGHT, TO PROPOSE A PROJECT ON LAND SOMEONE ELSE OWNS."(Emphasis mine.)
The government does not have the right to force a private landowner to turn over his property to another private individual, group, or developer. In fact, that's why government and the concept of "rule of law" came into existence in the first place-to protect the weak from the pillaging of the strong, or in modern vernacular, an ordinary landowner from a wealthy, powerful, campaign contributing developer. So, what happens if a citizen turns to the law and the courts for protection? The description continues: "The property owner would have the option of becoming a partner, BUT IF THEY REFUSED, THE CITY COULD USE EMINENT DOMAIN AND HAVE A COURT GIVE THE LAND A VALUE TO BE PAID TO THE OWNER."
The courts, rather than protecting the little guy, instead become a tool, an accomplice in effect, of the extortionists! Where does the government derive the