Yes on the intent, yes on the shock of even Liberals. But just because the phrase "eminent domain" appeared in the article doesn't make it one of "those" cases. It looks like a very simple case of Hercules trying to enforce its own land-use laws and having to resort to eminent domain after WalMart roared its defiance. Remember that it first tried to buy the land after it turned down WalMart's plans; that seems like an unusual attempt to be fair.

You're misstating what eminent domain is when you call it taking "property from one private profit-making entity and give it to another private profit-making entity", notwithstanding the recent cases in which that happened, and which we both agree is wrong. In its pure form, eminent domain does not allow the government to just take property, it only empowers a government to compel a sale at fair-market value. People who've disputed fair-market have tied up eminent domain cases in court for years. Where there's wiggle room for corruption is playing games with property values, including declaring an area "blighted" (see, I did browse through the Castle Coalition site) or otherwise artificially forcing down values. Those things are all wrong, but there's no evidence of any of that in the Hercules case.

I don't disagree with you at all about eminent domain abuse, I just don't think that this is one of those cases. Better to focus on the genuine cases than to lose credibility with shotgun indignation.