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.
|
1) There's always a disagreement about what is just. There wouldn't be a lawsuit otherwise. The problem is that personal valuations of any asset tend to exceed market valuations. Sometimes it's a result of the endowment effect (as Ty for a link). Sometimes it's because of unique attributes of the property. One of the plaintiffs in Kelo was a woman who had lived in her house 87 years, or something. I highly doubt that much of the emotiional value lost from its destruction will be compensated.
2) Entirely separate question of what is a taking in the first place. There's a difference between physical takings and regulatory takings, the latter of which are harder to discern. BTW, I'd like you to point me to the case where a duck requires you to tear down your house. most of those cases limit farmers from using their land in full. So, they plant around the water hole. Not saying they shouldn't be compensated, but there's a more challeging question when uses are limited, rather than actual property taken and title transferred to another.
