10 years ago, the US Supreme Court ruled that cities could seize buildings (including homes) to give to private development on the excuse that this would be "good for the community". The result was a popular movement that has mostly ended the practice.

Can we validly "presume" that governments "wouldn't be pursuing a development project in the first place unless they anticipated some benefit to the public"? Not at all. The idea that a handout to a company is "good for the community" was Scott Walker's excuse for handouts.

As this particular case shows, the whole idea of achieving a "benefit to the public" through a handout to the community is stupid. Companies make cities and states compete to offer handouts. Overall, the taxpayers lose and only the companies gain.

Why do so many politicians endorse these foolish ideas? Perhaps someone rich rewards them for it.