🚀 go-pugleaf

In ca.general David Marc Nieporent <nieporen@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> In article <d9im0l$4ch$2@blue.rahul.net>,
>  Merlin Dorfman <dorfman@green.rahul.net> wrote:
>>In ca.general BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>  Merlin Dorfman <dorfman@green.rahul.net> wrote:

>>>>      Frankly I don't think that a different decision would really
>>>> have changed anything. Governments would have seized the land for 
>>>> "a park," then a few months later turned around and sold it to the
>>>> private developers.

>>> Yeah, you're probably right.
>>> Frankly, I don't know why I should be allowed to have a savings account, 
>>> either. I'm sure Wal-Mart or some real estate developer could put the 
>>> money to better use. This would surely be "for the public good."

>>     The property owners will, I'm sure, be paid more than their
>>property is worth (though of course that was not the point of 
>>their suit).  

> No; by definition, they're being paid less than the property is worth to 
> them.  If they were being paid more, they'd sell.

     If you read the Constitution, it says "just compensation."
That pretty obviously means fair market value, not what somebody
who has an emotional attachment to the property would want for it.

> In practical terms, anybody who has been involved in a legal condemnation 
> actions knows that the amounts paid are always lowballed.  Monopsonies 
> backed up with guns tend to have an awful lot of market power.

     Quite the opposite; all the condemnation proceedings I've
seen give the property holders far more than the property would
be worth on the open market (before the redevelopment, of course
--after redevelopment it is worth a lot more).

>>A savings account has no value beyond its dollar
>>price, so if the govt seizes your $5000 account and pays you $6000
>>for it, I don't see that you have a lot of complaints coming.
>>(Except on general principle.)

> Yeah.  Pesky principles.

> Besides, BTR, he's right -- they have to compensate you when they take your 
> property via eminent domain.  When they want to take your savings accounts, 
> they just say the magic words "taxing the rich" and seize it.

     An interesting argument, you should try using it: all taxation
is seizing private property for public use, and per the constitution
must be "justly compensated."
     See you in court.