> On Sun, 26 Jun 2005, Nathan Newman wrote:
>
>> Any time eminent domain is used, people are required to receive the
>> market value of the property
>
> I think that's part of the problem. Fair market value doesn't compensate
> people for their pain and suffering -- the cost of being forced to uproot
> their lives -- which is a big deal. Eminent domain seems fundamentally
> unjust for a simple reason: they're not fully compensated. Theoretically
> that would be easy enough to fix. But you'd have to change the
> compensation principle to FMV Plus.
Which some analysts think would probably fly in court, from indications in the case law. Demanding a premium for the costs of moving for owner-occupied and such would be quite reasonable-- but that's a different issue from the idea that property owners should have an absolute veto on economic development involving their property.
-- Nathan Newman