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

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.

Perce


On 06/24/05 10:57 am G Henslee tossed the following ingredients into the
ever-growing pot of cybersoup:

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

Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
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.

Perce


On 06/24/05 10:57 am G Henslee tossed the following ingredients into the
ever-growing pot of cybersoup:

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


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

What happened to the US "land of the free" attitude. It seems that US
citizens now have governments that think more like dictatorships when they
have the power. A man's home is no longer his castle, when it is convenient
to take it for someone else's profit margin. It seems that large
corporations and governments are running rough shod over the private
landowner.

Here in Ontario, Canada, a homeowner is considered a tenant on the Queen's
property. But it seems that we have more property ownership rights than the
US citizen. While it used to be different, towns now will do anything to
avoid expropriating property. It is reserved for the "last option" in most
cases. I have never heard of a town in my area that would take property only
to turn it over to a commercial business.


"G Henslee" wrote in message
...
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm..._scotus29.html

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

G Henslee wrote:
Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

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.

Perce


On 06/24/05 10:57 am G Henslee tossed the following ingredients into
the ever-growing pot of cybersoup:

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



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

If someone wasn't planning on doing that why did it get placed for the
Supreme Court to make a decision on ?



--
If you find a posting or message from myself offensive,
inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know
how to ignore a posting,complain to me and I will demonstrate.