Impeding, or just not encouraging, job growth in rural communities devastates them far more than rare eminent domain issues. Building all new infrastructure can quickly turn an endeavor unprofitable, resulting in it not being done at all.

There is a balance, but I favor the use of eminent domain to expand economic opportunities to rural areas, as long as the buyouts are above market rate. Those that are affected are often the wealthier and older homeowners, not the struggling young families that most need help.

This is all very easy when it's "them". An HN user looks from afar and decide what's better for those rural folk. Those undeveloped types. The basket.

The reality: the government is attempting to take these peoples' property, ultimately under threat of force, in order to transfer it to a for-profit corporation in violation of state law. It does not meet the legal requirements for blight or for eminent domain under Wisconsin law. It is illegal.

Watch someone try to illegally bulldoze your own home you paid for and built, making you incur substantial moving expenses and disruption, destroying a place where you've built memories – all in exchange for a bunch of Foxconn temp agency jobs – and then tell me how you feel.

I grew up in a rural area, and I’ve seen first hand the destruction that lack of economic opportunities does to the next generation.

I’m not looking from afar - my sentiment is shared by many, if not most, in those communities.

Then find a way to do it that's legal. The scheme described in the article is illegal, and illegal activity is the most short-sighted way possible to economic growth. The area is prima facie not blighted as described by Wisconsin statute, and is therefore prohibited from being subjected to eminent domain for purposes of transfer to a private corporation.

That must be why Foxconn factories have -extensive- barbed wire on top of their buildings to prevent employee suicides.

Second, can we please agree this is NOT eminent domain. This is about government corruption to lower the cost of the eminent domain action to follow. Eminent domain would be that the government buys the house at market price, so that the people can buy a reasonably similar house somewhere else. That would, of course, satisfy all your objections.

The government is working to destroy these houses without compensation, so they can save something like perhaps $5 million (maybe not even that) while throwing these people into the street.

People are not opposed to this because their opinion is that these homeowners should be allowed to block economic development of a large area. People are opposed to this because they do not believe throwing these people into the street to save the government and the biggest corporation on the planet a small amount of money is acceptable. The government should be forced to pay as normal under eminent domain rules, and it should extract that money from the company wishing to settle there.

It strikes me as more than a little Orwellian to describe basic respect for property rights as "impeding job growth." What next, failing to plead guilty in court is impeding justice?

Foxconn is not an "economic opportunity", it's a grey faceless corporate leech, which will suck the life out of the community.

If you consider $14/hr for factory work acceptable. I certainly don't, especially not when you consider Foxconn's history of working conditions.

I call it desperate people getting exploited.

Who will be held accountable if the predicted return on investment is not seen?