Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
Does the public benefit outweight the harm to the takees. The compensation need only be just relative to the value of the property, but it need not account for relocation costs and emotional harm. Shit, you were the one on here a few weeks ago saying that people don't move in CA because they can't replace what they've already got.
|
OK, now I think you're with me on principle. I think the compensation to the takees should be fair, and that can be a generous "fair." E.g., if you're tearing down houses to build new houses, and the takees won't be able to afford anything in town at the market value of their new houses, then I think they should enough $$$ to afford something in town. Don't make them move. And, sure, compensate for relocation costs, etc. Go nuts. But I don't want to decide whether any of this rises to the level of constitutional principle. If I'm in charge, I legislate all this.
If the government is willing to incur these costs, and wants to seize the property by eminent domain to do some urban renewal, why not?
