🚀 go-pugleaf

In ca.general BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> In article <daco4f$drv$3@blue.rahul.net>,
>  Merlin Dorfman <dorfman@green.rahul.net> wrote:

>> 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.

> It doesn't "obviously" mean that at all. Someone who was born and raised 
> in a home that has been in her family for generations has an interest in 
> the property over and above what the local real estate market dictates.

> Refusing to compensate for that would be unjust.

     I'm sure the argument has been made, and I'm sure "greenmail"
has been paid to people who make such an argument, to avoid a 
drawn-out court battle.