A midcentury map of New York, packed with weird local lore (2019)

>This case was the result of a suit against such takings. The suit failed, and the takings continued.

You're absolutely correct.

GP wondered aloud if eminent domain was warranted for access to the WTC site and if that wasn't related to the 2005 case cited.

I merely pointed out that since WTC was constructed in the late 1960s/early 1970s that that case cited was irrelevant to that question, as it was built 50 years before that case (not to mention that any rebuilding after 9/11 was still before the cited case was decided).

That case wasn't relevant to the discussion at hand. Was it rightly decided? I don't have all the facts and IANAL, so I don't know.

I wouldn't want the state to take my property if I didn't want to sell, although as I understand it, in the 2005 case, the plaintiff was offered fair-market value for their property. Not saying that nullifies the plaintiff's complaint (being forced to sell when they don't wish to do so), nor do I necessarily (again, IANAL and don't know the facts of the case) agree with the court's ruling.

That said, the case cited was irrelevant to the question of whether or not eminent domain was used properly in obtaining access to the property used as the site for the WTC.