In , The Real Bev wrote (condensed by me):
"D. Gerasimatos" wrote:

The Real Bev wrote:
"D. Gerasimatos" wrote:

'make me an offer I can't refuse' when it wants my property.

The whole point of condemnation is to avoid exactly that.

Avoid paying me what I want for my own property?

Bingo. If the developer was willing to offer what the owners were
willing to accept, condemnation wouldn't be necessary.

What I believe is necessary for some law specifying degree of
compensation to owners of property condemned via eminent domain.

As in some figure that usually allows displaced homeowners to obtain a
nearby home that is in most ways no worse plus moving expenses. Maybe
double appraised value or 2.2x selling price previous year of similar
next-door property, and add to maybe that 1/3 of the state's most recently
determined median family income for moving expenses (probably on the
generous side). Possibly add to this 1% of the ground-area-apportioned
actual cost or assessed/appraised value of what got built afterwards.

What I think is necessary is laws providing compensation that makes
those forced out generally getting ahead a little. I don't think that
someone should be allowed to be some greedy opportunistic grabber by being
having legal protection of refusing an offer that even significantly
exceeds the maximum price that would be paid in an open market with
multiple buyers and multiple sellers for comparable pieces of property.

This is a proposal of mine, open to debate. What I believe is necessary
is for state and local legislatures to make laws governing this area, and
if they are not adequately compensating displaced property owners then
people gotta march onto the legislator's district offices. And if
response to that is unfavorable, then the constituents need to follow
through and fire the offending legislators as soon as they are up for
re-election!

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Another option: Tell your local, county and state legislators how you
feel! Find their office addresses, and send them letters or postcards!
Better to condense what you are saying into no more than a few sentences
with most of your main point in the first couple sentences and avoid side
points - letters are often read by staff being paid to handle large
volumes of mail! This is a good example of "Less is more"! (This applies
more to US Congress and less to at least the sleepier local governments.)
Find out when your local legislators are in session - gang up on them and
"mailbomb" them a week or maybe a couple weeks in advance! Gang up and
let the legislators know with hundreds of pounds of mail what a lot of
people want from them!
And if you care more about your property rights than about "hot button"
issues that push people's buttons, then be willing to vote for someone
that you disagree with on the issues used to "push your buttons"!

And don't stay home on primary election days. Even if the offender has
no opposition from his/her/its party, people should coordinate on a token
candidate (fictitious if necessary) for write-in to get actual counted
votes counted as being from disgruntled constituents - that could sway the
offender (or his/her/its challenger from the other party) by the following
November!

If the offending candidate has no opposition in the November election, a
coordinated effort towards a single write-in candidate (fictitious if
necessary) could motivate the offender to beware of vulnerability, and
maybe convince someone else to run for that office on the "burning issue"
if the numbers are impressive enough!

Can anyone here think of a name for a fictitious write-in candidate to
use in unopposed elections to get a vote counted for property rights???

- Don Klipstein )