Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
The point I am trying to make, is that if the government puts a restriction on your land for the public benefit that impedes your ability to obtain income on your land or reduces the value you should be compensated.
|
I understand the impulse, but that's crazy. If the government decides to let planes fly into San Jose Airport after 8 p.m., must it compensate everyone in the flight path who has a plane fly overhead? Surely the value of their land is diminished.
And you're extending rights to propertyholders that they didn't even have at common law. The law of nuisance is all about restrictions on your land for the benefit of your neighbors. People have always accepted that you can't use your land in a way that hurts your neighbors.
And, re the post above, skeks is picking up the thread of an old conversation. His point, as I understand it, is that if the gains to the country of free trade are greater than the losses to some workers, why not compensate the later out of the gains to the former. Club seems to accepting that compensation is appropriate when it's propertyholders who receive it, but not when it's working men and women.
Threaded Mode