4 ms·

> “Some people think it’s good, but it would be especially good if it wasn’t in their [former] house,” This implies that some of the people expropriated didn't

by knolax 7y ago

> “Some people think it’s good, but it would be especially good if it wasn’t in their [former] house,” This implies that some of the people expropriated didn't their get homes back. Instead of getting new families to move in why not simply return these people their homes.

mark-r 7y ago
I think in many (most?) cases the former owners simply aren't alive anymore. Presumably they were paid for the houses when they were kicked out too, so that would complicate things.
- droithomme 7y ago
  This same thing has happened in the USA as well. TVA will use eminent domain to seize a bunch of properties, paying fair market value (usually a little bit above appraisal, hardly enough to compensate for having one's farm destroyed and needing to start over), and then sometimes the project falls through or gets cancelled. 20, 30, 50 years later, the property is sitting there, now federal land, no one on it, with no planned use for the future. It would make sense to sell it to someone to use, but they never do. They just squat on vast acreages acquired for obsolete projects. New London Connecticut went to the Supreme Court to establish the right of local governments to seize private property on behalf of for-profit multinational corporations, under the theory that the corporation would pay more in tax and thus evicting the owner and seizing their home is a public good. Connecticut won and established this right permanently as fundamental to the Constitution, unable to be challenged or diminished by law. New London's corporate master then decided they didn't really want the land after all. Owner was cast out and her life destroyed, her house sitting rotting to this day, no taxes at all being collected. But thank God the corporations have this new Constitutional right to seize any private property under eminent domain!
  - DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
    I agree that that SCOTUS decision was horrifying, but I'm assuming that the justices did their best to faithfully interpret the Constitution. I imagine Congress could pass laws or Constitutional amendments to undo the damage, if sufficiently motivated.
Talanes 7y ago
It's been fifty years, the homes are all just ruins now, and there's a massive ecological shift that has completely changed it from the place they remember. I doubt anyone who isn't already there and involved wants to come back.

by knolax 7y ago

mark-r 7y ago

I think in many (most?) cases the former owners simply aren't alive anymore. Presumably they were paid for the houses when they were kicked out too, so that would complicate things.

droithomme 7y ago
This same thing has happened in the USA as well. TVA will use eminent domain to seize a bunch of properties, paying fair market value (usually a little bit above appraisal, hardly enough to compensate for having one's farm destroyed and needing to start over), and then sometimes the project falls through or gets cancelled. 20, 30, 50 years later, the property is sitting there, now federal land, no one on it, with no planned use for the future. It would make sense to sell it to someone to use, but they never do. They just squat on vast acreages acquired for obsolete projects. New London Connecticut went to the Supreme Court to establish the right of local governments to seize private property on behalf of for-profit multinational corporations, under the theory that the corporation would pay more in tax and thus evicting the owner and seizing their home is a public good. Connecticut won and established this right permanently as fundamental to the Constitution, unable to be challenged or diminished by law. New London's corporate master then decided they didn't really want the land after all. Owner was cast out and her life destroyed, her house sitting rotting to this day, no taxes at all being collected. But thank God the corporations have this new Constitutional right to seize any private property under eminent domain!
- DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
  I agree that that SCOTUS decision was horrifying, but I'm assuming that the justices did their best to faithfully interpret the Constitution. I imagine Congress could pass laws or Constitutional amendments to undo the damage, if sufficiently motivated.

Talanes 7y ago

It's been fifty years, the homes are all just ruins now, and there's a massive ecological shift that has completely changed it from the place they remember. I doubt anyone who isn't already there and involved wants to come back.