Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Every thing taken to its extreme is crazy. But I have read about developers who buy a piece of property and then the government decides that nothing can be built on it. Usually because of a lawsuit by an environmental group. Then the property becomes worthless. If the government decides that you cannot use your property it should have to purchase it. In other words, the government can purchase the property and then do nothing with it. There is a group called the nature conservatory that buys property and then lets it remain natural. They have bought most of Catalina Island. I have raised money for them. But Eminent domain can occur without the government actually physically taking title.
|
Yes, we know about regulatory takings, but you're not really advancing it very well.
First off, oftimes the "developer" is buying a lawsuit, and they know it. They want to build some massive complex on previously low-impact-development land, and then sue. If anyone deserves compensation, it's the seller, for the reduced value of the land.
Second, it's not that they can't do anything with the land, it's that they can't build 75 mcmansions on 3500 sq.ft. lots.
Finally, do you have an issue with the standard of deprivation of all economically beneficial use for there to be a regulatory taking? Because I can see an argument that something short of that should qualify as a taking, but I don't know how you'd implement a workable test that's anything short of "all" or "nearly all".
