Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
I don't understand this obsession with the takings clause. As long as people get just compensation what is the big deal. If you don't think you are being paid enough for your property then I can see the complaint. But if the government seizes your land, take the money and buy some other land. It is when the government effects land and doesn't provide compensation then I have a problem. Like when the government declares your property a "Wet land" and won't let you build on it. You should be compensated for that because they have reduced the value of the land. The government can take my house anytime, as long as they pay the FMV. Just don't decide when a duck lands in a puddle on my property that I have to tear down my house.
|
What additional FMV to the fact that it's a family home? My guess is that your answer would be "zero." And that is part of the problem.
And what government action does not affect the value of land? I find the entire regulatory takings concept odious.
eta: I am not going to reply to any further comments on this, because I really want to see Slave and Spanky battle this one out.
Loser gets to fuck Paigow.
