Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
On 06/27/05 01:59 pm no mail tossed the following ingredients into the
ever-growing pot of cybersoup:

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.

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

I think the municipality should reckon compensation on the basis of the
resultant commercial zoning. E.g., Individual A's property is a% of the
total area whose commercial value is $X million, so s/he gets a% of $X
million rather than "fair market value" of the residence being taken.

What if the taking results in a negative impact on the value? If the
land was taken to become a park, the value of the property would be
less.

Do not forget that the question in this case was not about just
compensation, but whether or not the purpose of the taking met the
definition of "public use" under the fifth ammendment.

The reason the properties in New London were condemned was because the
owners refused to sell. The property owners didn't say that they
weren't offered enough money - they just refused to sell. We can
assume that the New London Redevelopment Corporation made a fair offer
because there was nothing in the case that said the compensation was at
issue.