"outraged"? I'm afraid that doesn't narrow it down much...;-)

I did some research to refresh my memory, though it actually doesn't help me remember my reaction to the New London, because it seems significantly different from the Hercules case. New London strikes me (at least now) as clearly abusive, while Hercules is clearly legitimately defensive. I think the difference is in the degree of direct involvement of the cities. The City of Hercules had a passive involvement: It had a master development plan and zoning ordinances, but it wasn't trying to orchestrate development so much as arrange its growth in accordance with local concepts of feng shui. In constrast, New London seemed to be acting as a virtual general contractor in putting together that deal, and there are too many opportunities for corruption in that arrangement--the fix was obviously in, in there somewhere.

From a WashPost article about the New London case:

The redevelopment program at issue in yesterday's case -- the plan of the Connecticut city of New London to turn 90 acres of waterfront land into office buildings, upscale housing, a marina and other facilities near a $300 million research center being built by pharmaceuticals giant Pfizer -- was also expected to generate hundreds of jobs and, city officials say, $680,000 in property tax revenue.

Whose property values would skyrocket if this development went ahead, regardless of whether it actually proved viable? Whose employees would have upscale housing convenient to work?

And the city's take would have been $680,000? Hey, several somethings smell like a rat here. Know what I mean?

I suspect my position, such as it is, is really a response to the facts of these two cases, and doesn't necessarily represent a coherent plank in my ideology. My sense of justice led me to opposite judgments, so really all I've got is my own rulings in these two cases.