🚀 go-pugleaf

In ca.general BTR1701 <btr1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> In article <d9i4kn$hgm$6@blue.rahul.net>,
>  Merlin Dorfman <dorfman@green.rahul.net> wrote:

>> In ca.general Tim May <timcmay@removethis.got.net> wrote:
>> 
>> ...
>> 
>> > Local government are celebrating...freaking out. Every hotel complex
>> > they were contemplating, with lucrative kickbacks through obscure
>> > channels to themselves, is now back "in play." 
>> 
>> > Every shopping center, every coastal convention center, every "seniors
>> > housing," every "low income Section 14 Setaside complex" that was ever
>> > hindered by inability to acquire land is now "back in play." With
>> > lucrative kickbacks to those who steal the land.
>> 
>>      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).  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.)