Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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?
|
Here's my problem with the case, that I think may distinguish it, is: where is the collective action/holdout problem that requires government intervention? With RRs, there was at least the justification that the private developer (the RR) could not go out and buy up a straight strip of land because of holdouts. But here what's to prevent a developer from going in and buying up houses and redeveloping them? So what if Grandma Jones wants to sit on her land in her shanty? Her heirs can sell out.
The biggest hold-out problem I can see is that someone may perceive some externality--that is, her shanty goes up in value because of the surrounding development. Well, yeah, but that's called savvy buying and holding.
Is there a plausible argument that the developer needs all the land at once? 'Cause where I'm living, the builders buy a junk house on a medium-sized lot, and put up two mcmansions on postage stamps. Everyone wins--sellers, buyers, and taxing authority. And no need for a taking.
