4 ms·
It seems like the price of the various measures that avoid invoking eminent domain ends up being so extraordinarily high (hundred-million-dollar bridge trusses
by mapt 13y ago
It seems like the price of the various measures that avoid invoking eminent domain ends up being so extraordinarily high (hundred-million-dollar bridge trusses and the like), I do not quite understand why offering market plus 100% or something isn't a solution. Not an extortionate rate, but one sufficient to make it a financially favored course of action for all involved landowners. Eminent domain is for the irrational holdouts, not for "offering pennies on the dollar" as opponents say, or for getting just-slightly-submarket-prices.
- gizmo686 13y agoThe problem is that the only people who can say how much money is necessary is the landowners themselves. However, they have an incentive to lie if doing so would allow them to get a higher price. Additionally, different landowners would value their own land at a significantly different rate relative to the market. For example, if you live in a custom built house, with a treehouse that your kids built themselves, that is within walking distance to the school and your place of work, you would need significantly more compensation them most people to move out of your house. I don't see any solution other than letting cases where an agreement cannot be reached go to court.
- mapt 13y agoThere are three people are well-placed to say how much money is 'market value': 1) The owners themselves, by self-declaring asset values for taxation purposes (on pain of having them vulnerable to eminent domain seizure if they under-declare) 2) Independent assessors who do value assessment for property tax purposes already 3) The sellers that granted the owners possession for a certain value