Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
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.
|
Well, in the particular case here, they were building a whole complex, not just individual houses. I'm not sure how much is housing, but the one thing I can think of is that so many "desirable" housing developments now are desirable partly because of restrictive mutual covenants, which are hard to do if you are buying up piecemeal.
ETA "adjacent to and complementing a brand new $300 million research facility for the pharmaceutical giant, Pfizer, there would be condos, health clubs, a luxury hotel, shops, and other assorted mega-stuff. Most of the folks in town agreed to sell, but seven families, owning 15 homes, refused. They like their crumbly Victorians. So when the state tried to condemn their property, they sought injunctions."
I think it's interesting that 7 "families" own FIFTEEN houses [whoops, of course I mean
homes] -- I'm thinking, some of these "families" are actually people who own rental property and are really just looking for more money.
Threaded Mode