Spring 2007, Vol 32, No 1

Abstract: Response to the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo vs. New London has been dramatic and polarizing. Yet the ongoing debate fails to address the broader issues of how to define blight and best results, and how to undertake improvements in a manner that is sensitive to the needs of those most directly affected. The question that remains unasked—and one that may be far more important than the technicalities of public use vs. public benefit—is benefit for whom?