主题：看图说话，现实 -- 百年

貌似购物中心不在内吧，并且采取这类行动的限制在2005年的Kelo v. City of New London案之后变得愈发严格了，只要搜一下wiki就可以看到：

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eminent_domain#United_States

The Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) affirmed New London’s authority to take non-blighted private property by eminent domain, and then transfer it for a dollar a year to a private developer solely for the purpose of increasing municipal revenues. This 5-4 decision received heavy press coverage because the Court sided with the city's argument that this sort of taking and private redevelopment was a public benefit. Kelo inspired a public outcry that eminent domain powers were too broad. As a reaction to Kelo, several states enacted or are considering enacting state legislation that would further define and restrict the state's own power of eminent domain. The Supreme Courts of Illinois, Michigan (County of Wayne v. Hathcock(2004)) Ohio (Norwood, Ohio v. Horney(2006), Oklahoma, and South Carolina have recently ruled to disallow such takings under their state constitutions.

The redevelopment in New London, that was the subject of the Kelo decision, proved to be a failure and as of the late fall of 2008 (over three years after the court's decision) the redeveloper has not been able to obtain financing for the project and nothing has been built on the taken land in spite of the expenditure of some $80 million in public funds.

American libertarians argue that eminent domain is unnecessary. Bruce L. Benson notes that utilities, for instance, have a variety of methods at their disposal, such as option contracts and dummy buyers, to obtain the contiguous parcels of land needed to build pipelines, roads, and so forth. These methods are routinely used to acquire land needed for shopping malls and other large developments.[5] Defending the Undefendable argues that the problem of recalcitrant landowners (i.e. "the curmudgeon") who refuse reasonable offers for the sale of their land is solved in the long term by the fact that their failure to accumulate wealth through such trades will give them a relative disadvantage in attempting to accumulate more land. Thus, the vast majority of land will tend to ultimately end up in the control of those who are willing to make profitable exchanges.[6]

[edit] Bush Executive Order

On June 23, 2006 - on the one-year anniversary of the Kelo decision (see above), President George W. Bush issued an executive order stating in Section I that the federal government must limit its use of taking private property for "public use" with "just compensation", which is also stated in the constitution, for the "purpose of benefiting the general public." He limits this use by stating that it may not be used "for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken".[7] However, eminent domain is more often exercised by local and state governments, albeit often with funds obtained from the Federal government.