4 ms·
You don’t need to give incumbent landowners a veto over development. That’s a choice, and one that can be made differently.
by dwoozle 7y ago
You don’t need to give incumbent landowners a veto over development. That’s a choice, and one that can be made differently.
- vuln 7y agoI must be misunderstanding your comment. Are you advocating for the government to take a land owner’s property without any recourse? The land owner is given no choice in the matter? Seems awful.
- marcinzm 7y agoRoads are generally not controlled or owned by the adjacent landowners but rather the government. Although do let me know if it's different in London.
- ItsDeathball 7y agoEven if the subject weren't publicly owned land, the implication would be the opposite, that landowners should control their own land and not everything around it that doesn't belong to them.
- gumby 7y agoYes, you misunderstood the comment to which you were replying. Public roadways serve more than just the properties adjacent to them. People should not be downvoting your comment.
- dwoozle 7y agoSure, it’s called eminent domain, the land owner has no recourse but they do get compensated, and it’s an almost universal concept.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]