3 ms·
>with zero recourse What? There is absolutely recourse, such as "sue them and at a minimum tie the project up in lawsuits for years". Or "be furious and rally
by xoa 7y ago
>with zero recourse
What? There is absolutely recourse, such as "sue them and at a minimum tie the project up in lawsuits for years". Or "be furious and rally with lots of other furious land owners/interested citizens and vote the bums out" because focused single interests, even as minorities, often can exert a great deal of political influence in a democracy. Or even illegally resisting through various means, which might not affect this area of California specifically but is a real threat in some parts of the US.
Eminent domain has an important place and has be used well, as well as abused. But whether justified or not its use, particularly in modern, is frequently fraught with controversy and political/legal battles.
- kenhwang 7y agoIt's just political suicide to use eminent domain these days, but if the political climate changes, maybe it'll be used again. The power as written is pretty powerful and has only gotten more powerful and broad every time it's challenged in court. Since it's hard to argue that building a high speed rail isn't "public use", the only thing you'd be suing over would be the "just compensation" part. I believe in that case, the government can take and use first, and you can lawsuit afterwards over how much money you think it's worth which really doesn't stall anything. If the government can use eminent domain successfully take over land to give to private developers to build a mall, or even take it just to increase city revenues, it sure as hell can use it to build a train.