Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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?
|
I'm with you on the principle that the compensation should be fair, and certainly better than FMV. But I don't think I'm with you that eminent domain in this case should be upheld because, given how attenuated I view the public benefit, I think it completely eviserates any notice of real (i.e., legitimate) property rights.
