no mail wrote:

wrote:
The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize
people's homes and businesses, even against their will, for private
economic development.

http://www.wusatv9.com/news/news_art...?storyid=40692
http://www.wusatv9.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=40692

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.

Suppose the only place they can buy to replace it is 100 miles away from their
children/grandchildren instead of walking distance?

If that piece of land is so valuable to the government, the government
should pay more than its market value.

A friend who did a stint as a municipal lawyer said that the city he worked
for paid more than market value + moving expenses + found them a new house +
their property tax base didn't change + some other stuff that seemed extremely
generous. The only bad thing is that the people can't live where they were
living any more. Sometimes that matters more than money.

--
Cheers, Bev
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\
"He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already
earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by
mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice."
-- -Albert Einstein