>It's a little like the Fed's current lender-of-last-resort discount
policy: they charge a higher interest rate and then make it relatively
easy for banks to apply and get loans. The premium discourages casual
borrowing.<
somehow, with all of Wojtek's name-calling ("reactionary"), the point got lost. My original point was that eminent domain -- even when it benefited only private-run development in search of private profits (as it almost always does) -- be streamlined.
For example, instead of the current gigantic legal/bureaucratic hoo-hah, the law could say that the public or private agency that gets the real estate would have to pay _twice_ the current market value for the property taken, with the higher price going to the current owners. (There would still need to be hearings, but there would be fewer of them, since the higher price would deter the use of eminent domain as a business strategy.)
One problem is that it might create an incentive for property-owners to push governments to take their property under ED. So maybe the extra revenue (due to the doubled price) could go into the government's general revenues or its capital budget.
Anyway, I'm outa here (lbo-talk) for awhile. Too much work. -- Jim Devine / Bust Big Brother Bush!
"To be positive: To be mistaken at the top of one's voice." -- Ambrose Bierce, Devil's Dictionary.