1 First off, I'd change "for a period of 50 years" to for a period of not less than 50 years". That just so's no one thinks that the government is required to sell it back to the either the old owner(s) (or their heirs) or a new private owner when the 50 years has passed.
Property shall not be taken if the purpose of the acquisition is the promotion of economic development for a private business enterprise which business enterprise would own any right, title, or interest in the property so acquired.
Even though the 5th Amendment uses the word "taken", it's modified by "without just compensation", so I think the word above should be "purchased".

And I think that "Property shall not be taken" should read "Private property shall not be purchased by government".
The bigger problem with the way it's worded is that it outlaws even a voluntary sale of private property to government if the government intends to resell it to a private entity. Perhaps the words "under duress" should be added.

2 Also, you specify only "a private business enterprise". What if John Bon Jovi wants to buy your house but you don't want to sell? What if he got the town use eminent domain to force you to sell it to the town who'd then sell it to John Bon Jovi?

3 And, I can already hear someone arguing in court that "it's not for 'the promotion of economic development for a private business enterprise', it's for the economic development of the town as a whole!".

4 If they were purchasing property i.e. on the open market we wouldn't be doing this! I think the distinction between taking and purchasing is very important.

We could ad reference to individuals as well though I think that scenario is a fairly uncommon.

5 Excellent point on the taking/purchasing distinction. In a purchase the seller has a say.

A reference to individual third parties may seem unneccesery now, but just wait 'til the commies present it as precedent for governmet's Right to all property. "Public interest" can mean anything a tyrant decides it means. Better to be clear 'bout it now than to debate it later...

6 And this is my other beef: Why are we finnessing this? The beauty of the Constitution is that it's so short. Why not just say that "a man owns what he owns and his government can't tell him otherwise"...?n "Balance"? Shmalance. Property distinct from government is what we're founded on. Every man a king!

7 What if the state decides to let a private enterprise build on its land but still maintains all titles of ownership? Possible loophole?

8 Spork,

We are finessing this because there will always be eminent domain but it needs to be strictly limited.

Justin,

I think that loophole is close by the clause defining public use:

"public use shall be limited to property that shall be entirely owned, maintained and operated by government for the direct use of the public for a period of 50 years."

I still wonder if we could just end it there?

9 I think that "just compensation" should also be defined somehow. One idea I've heard is twice the average market price for the neighborhood, since the property is being coercively taken, not sold.

10 Stephen:

I'd like to have your thoughts on my propsed amendment:

Section 1: Eminent domain shall not be construed to allow any government within the United States to take property from one private citizen, corporation, or organization to be given or sold to any other citizen, corporation, or organization for any reason. The Federal government shall only invoke eminent domain in order to carry out the necessary functions of government as enumerated in this Constitution.

Section 2: ‘Just compensation’ shall be defined as no less than double the fair market value of the property being taken for local, State, and Federal governments to carry out their legally prescribed functions.

Section 3: No government within the jurisdiction of the United States shall invoke eminent domain with the purpose of generating additional revenue.