4 ms·
I truly wonder why some municipalities are paying huge fees to private water-rights holders when the Takings clause just says: > nor shall private property be
by anonymouskimmer 3y ago
I truly wonder why some municipalities are paying huge fees to private water-rights holders when the Takings clause just says:
> nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Certainly it is "just" to simply pay what the private landholder originally paid for the land that carries with it the water rights?
- ejb999 3y agopaying what someone 'originally paid' for it? That won't fly - someone may have bought a valuable asset 50 years ago that is now worth 100X what they paid for it - only giving them what they paid for it can hardly be called 'just compensation' and I suspect most all courts would agree.
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoI'm talking about speculators engaged in predatory flipping (and was also assuming adjusting for inflation). Water rights speculation has apparently only been going on in Arizona for around 30 years. While some of this speculation may be net beneficial (use of recharge areas to recharge ground water), others just seem speculative and aimed at making a premium when municipalities are eventually forced to buy.
- appleskeptic 3y ago“just compensation” = market value
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoYeah, that does seem to be the legal definition of the term. It just seems problematic for the taxpayer in markets with strong speculation.