Page:United States Reports, Volume 545.djvu/537



Opinion of the Court Berman objected to “taking from one businessman for the beneﬁt of another businessman,”, referring to the fact that under the redevelopment plan land would be leased or sold to private developers for redevelopment. Our rejection of that contention has particular relevance to the instant case: “The public end may be as well or better served through an agency of private enterprise than through a department of government—or so the Congress might conclude. We cannot say that public ownership is the sole method of promoting the public purposes of community redevelopment projects.” Id., at 33–34.

It is further argued that without a bright-line rule nothing would stop a city from transferring citizen A’s property to

purpose). It is worth noting that in Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, (1984), Monsanto, and Boston & Maine Corp., the property in question retained the same use even after the change of ownership.