Question 1 In Kelo v. New London and Kaur v. NYS, there was controversy concerning whether "economic development" (jobs, amenities, and tax revenue) satisfies the 5* Amendment stipulation that private property can only be taken for a "public use." What might be wrong with "economic development" as a reason to take private property even though just compensation is paid? Question 2 It has been argued that some regulations on the use of private property can be so intrusive as to constitute an uncompensated "taking." (That was the issue in Penn Central Railroad vs. New York City summarized on page 462.) Please briefly explain, in your own words, what "so intrusive as to constitute a taking" means. Question 3 Government has two major powers over private property rights. It can regulate via "police power" (per amendment #10) and it can "take" private property for public use if it pays fairly (per amendment #5). Why would government prefer to reach its goals via regulations rather than by "taking?" Your