On 06/24/05 12:02 pm G Henslee tossed the following ingredients into the
ever-growing pot of cybersoup:

This wouldn't be too bad in practice (athough still bad in principle)
if the city reckoned 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.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm..._scotus29.html

I'd be willing to bet $X million that will never happen.

I'm sure you're correct -- and I meant to add that point myself.

But even where the exercise of eminent domain is for some public
facility and not just to satisfy developers and fill the city's coffers,
there needs to be compensation beyond mere "fair market value" for the
residence being taken. Many years ago in Brisbane, Australia the State
(not the city, IIRC) compulsorily purchased a bunch of little old houses
on tiny lots in an inner-city neighborhood in order to construct a new
freeway. The residents, mostly elderly, may even have been given more
than "fair market value," but it wasn't enough to buy anything else even
if they moved way out of the city. I think many of them had to move in
with other family members or else bank the money and find a rental
somewhere.

And to add insult to injury, even the earthworks for the project were
never completed. The whole freeway project was abandoned.

Perce