> The viewpoint you're pushing is that this taking doesn't adequately balance the interests of the homeowner. The callousness with which the homeowner's intere

> The viewpoint you're pushing is that this taking doesn't adequately balance the interests of the homeowner. The callousness with which the homeowner's interests are dismissed does suggest this, yes. > To use your own words: Asserts facts not in evidence. I haven't asserted it as a fact, I've questioned whether their interests were balanced because of the contempt for those interests that was demonstrated in the article. > It's your assumption and your bias. And you're wording your question to assume that bias. I'm specifically addressing this as the thing that I posted about. There's nothing biased about responding to a callous statement by observing that it dismisses someone's perspective callously. > Tunnels still have entrances. It may be fewer houses, but it's still going to take them. The entrance can be constructed on public land or on land that was purchased on the market. There's nothing about tunnels that require expropriation. The same cannot be said about large above-ground structures in occupied areas when people don't want to sell.