4 ms·

> Expropriate can mean taking by eminent domain, but it also can mean taking with no compensation whatsoever. Yeah, it just means 'taking property.' It doesn't

> Expropriate can mean taking by eminent domain, but it also can mean taking with no compensation whatsoever. Yeah, it just means 'taking property.' It doesn't reference compensation. > "How can someone be so callous?" That's a question, but it's not just a question. It's pushing a viewpoint. Well it does imply that the person referenced is being callous towards the concerns of the property owners, which is why I asked the question. I'm not sure what viewpoint you think I'm pushing. I'm wondering how someone can be so dismissive of the concerns of a homeowner regarding the government depriving them of their home in a place they chose to live. They picked that house and that place for a variety of reasons then invested their time, their life, their families, and their money in that community. Then some bureaucrat says "we need this for <aquaducts>, get out or die. Here's a check." Its one thing to exercise your best judgment and believe that when the public interest is balanced against the private interest, this is the greater good. But when someone callously disregards the interest of the homeowner in the home and community they have chosen to be part of, it raises serious questions about whether their interests are actually being balanced fairly. When someone is casually dismissive of a person's interest in continuing to own the home that they chose to buy and live in, one wonders if they are even considering the homeowner as a person and not an obstacle. > By definition? I call BS. Yes, by definition market value is the amount that must be paid to achieve a voluntary transaction on the market. Eminent domain forces a person out under threat of violence and pays an amount that the forcing party deems to be acceptable. If they were offering fair market value, by definition, they wouldn't have to threaten violence. > In fact, the Constitution requires "just compensation". I'm confident you understand that the constitution is a document and does not compel obedience to its words. Furthermore "just compensation" implies the question "just according to whom?" Its not a synonym for "market value." > Nice whine. So when I used a technical term correctly, you whined. Now I break it down into it technical components in a purely descriptive sense, so I'm not expecting you to know the meanings of technical terms, and you say I'm whining. What am I to make of this? > But in fact the government does have the right to do that, and for quite good reasons. Referring back to the question that started this discussion, when people are so callous about the manner in which government exercises its powers, it calls into questions whether those reasons are in fact very good. Minor quibble: governments have powers, people have rights. > And, if they make the tunnel, they're going to have to take different peoples' houses. Asserts facts not in evidence. The point of the tunnel is to go underneath extant structures. > On that point, I agree with you at least some of the time. glad to see I'm making my point.

jcranmer 6y ago
> Yes, by definition market value is the amount that must be paid to achieve a voluntary transaction on the market. Eminent domain forces a person out under threat of violence and pays an amount that the forcing party deems to be acceptable. If they were offering fair market value, by definition, they wouldn't have to threaten violence. Infrastructure works such as roads and railroads require a continuous right of way to be able to function. Anyone constructing such a work is compelled to purchase all of the land necessary for that work; if they fail to obtain just one parcel, then the value of the result is often worthless. Not only is the seller compelled to sell the parcel, but the buyer is also compelled to buy it. Fair market value is the price that the parcel would have been bought for if the buyer were not compelled to buy it at almost any price, and it can generally be imputed by looking at the history of real estate transactions for similar parcels. It's a pretty usual practice, since it's relevant for pricing real estate, insurance claims and estimates, and even property taxes.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > Anyone constructing such a work is compelled to purchase all of the land necessary for that work; if they fail to obtain just one parcel, then the value of the result is often worthless. Not only is the seller compelled to sell the parcel, but the buyer is also compelled to buy it. You're using two different sense of the word "compelled" here which creates a logical fallacy called "equivocation." The buyer is not compelled to purchase all the land by men with guns who will force them to take possession of the land. They are "compelled" in the sense that their preferred outcome relies on obtaining all the land that they want, which is very different and makes the value of the parcels they have obtained dependent on the acquisition of the remaining parcels. This is not at all the same as men with guns coercing someone to do something. Really I'd have more confidence in such schemes if people weren't habitually eliding the plain facts of the situation with euphemisms and equivocations. If you think large infrastructure projects require depriving people of their property with violence and the greater good of society requires large infrastructure projects, just own up to it. its just violence and threats, its part of life. What do you think happens if you don't pay your taxes or don't pull over for the flashing blue lights? > Fair market value is the price that the parcel would have been bought for if the buyer were not compelled to buy it at almost any price, and it can generally be imputed by looking at the history of real estate transactions for similar parcels. It's a pretty usual practice, since it's relevant for pricing real estate, insurance claims and estimates, and even property taxes. Thats how people arrive at "just compensation" in order to meet constitutional scrutiny, that's not what "market value" means. The inconvenient fact that when bureaucrats decide they want something they can get the police to take it away and write a check is just a fact of life. If its so bad that we need to pretend its not the case, then maybe we shouldn't do it. If its not that bad but people get upset, then we need to toughen up and stop pretending otherwise so people can come to terms with the world we live in today.

jcranmer 6y ago

> Yes, by definition market value is the amount that must be paid to achieve a voluntary transaction on the market. Eminent domain forces a person out under threat of violence and pays an amount that the forcing party deems to be acceptable. If they were offering fair market value, by definition, they wouldn't have to threaten violence. Infrastructure works such as roads and railroads require a continuous right of way to be able to function. Anyone constructing such a work is compelled to purchase all of the land necessary for that work; if they fail to obtain just one parcel, then the value of the result is often worthless. Not only is the seller compelled to sell the parcel, but the buyer is also compelled to buy it. Fair market value is the price that the parcel would have been bought for if the buyer were not compelled to buy it at almost any price, and it can generally be imputed by looking at the history of real estate transactions for similar parcels. It's a pretty usual practice, since it's relevant for pricing real estate, insurance claims and estimates, and even property taxes.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> Anyone constructing such a work is compelled to purchase all of the land necessary for that work; if they fail to obtain just one parcel, then the value of the result is often worthless. Not only is the seller compelled to sell the parcel, but the buyer is also compelled to buy it. You're using two different sense of the word "compelled" here which creates a logical fallacy called "equivocation." The buyer is not compelled to purchase all the land by men with guns who will force them to take possession of the land. They are "compelled" in the sense that their preferred outcome relies on obtaining all the land that they want, which is very different and makes the value of the parcels they have obtained dependent on the acquisition of the remaining parcels. This is not at all the same as men with guns coercing someone to do something. Really I'd have more confidence in such schemes if people weren't habitually eliding the plain facts of the situation with euphemisms and equivocations. If you think large infrastructure projects require depriving people of their property with violence and the greater good of society requires large infrastructure projects, just own up to it. its just violence and threats, its part of life. What do you think happens if you don't pay your taxes or don't pull over for the flashing blue lights? > Fair market value is the price that the parcel would have been bought for if the buyer were not compelled to buy it at almost any price, and it can generally be imputed by looking at the history of real estate transactions for similar parcels. It's a pretty usual practice, since it's relevant for pricing real estate, insurance claims and estimates, and even property taxes. Thats how people arrive at "just compensation" in order to meet constitutional scrutiny, that's not what "market value" means. The inconvenient fact that when bureaucrats decide they want something they can get the police to take it away and write a check is just a fact of life. If its so bad that we need to pretend its not the case, then maybe we shouldn't do it. If its not that bad but people get upset, then we need to toughen up and stop pretending otherwise so people can come to terms with the world we live in today.