D. Gerasimatos wrote:
In article ,
no mail wrote:

The thing I don't understand is that why the property owners can't be
compensentated more. If they are ofered 150% of the property value, I
don't think there will be many people who will complain.



This just isn't true. Let us say that you bought a beachfront property for
$100K 20 years ago. It's now paid off. Further, let us assume the property
is in California and Prop 13 is in effect, so that your property taxes are
low relative to the value of the property, which is now $500K. You
are now retired and on a fixed income. If you are offered $750K for
the property, for many people this is not a fair deal - especially if the
beachfront is now littered with much larger houses costing $1M+. In
addition to the emotional attachment and the prospect of higher taxes, there
is the real possibility that you have lost your ocean view forever.


Property is often not easily interchangeable. There are plenty of houses
that cost the same as mine that I hate, whether it be because of location,
neighbors, or whatever. It would take a substantial premium over the
appraised value (probably 50%) for me to consider putting up with the
hassle of finding and moving into a new house. If someone wants to pay me
4x the value I'll take it, though. I think that the government should simply
'make me an offer I can't refuse' when it wants my property.


Dimitri


I meant 150% of market value. I would certainly happy to sell my house
for 120% of market value, and find an equivalent house nearby and pocket
that difference.

I guess the key is that "market value". If there is no houses for sale
in the area, the houses would sell at very high prices.