> the existing landowners are 1) demanding money well above the inherent value of the land, and The inherent value of the land is what market is willing to pay

> the existing landowners are 1) demanding money well above the inherent value of the land, and The inherent value of the land is what market is willing to pay for it in the moment. If you accept that land is to be traded freely, then the seller can set the price as they choose or refuse to sell. What you suggest is that the government sets the price and force sale for the grater good. Even if we collectively decided that this is how it should be, this instance is a really bad example, because they haven’t shared what they want to do there. Why do you automatically think that their plan will be for the public benefit? Eminent domain had a narrow scope, at least originally, for public use. In 2005 things changed [1]. Actually Kelo vs New London is a very good example. The paned out redevelopment never happened, Pfizer closed down the facility in New London. City never recovered its loses. [1] https://ij.org/case/kelo/ https://ij.org/case/kelo/