Quote:
Originally Posted by steve_biegler
Oh I think I understand what he meant and I guess I came off as combative, I did not mean to. Sorry. I think the idea of using any means necessary just rubs me the wrong way. I still believe that individual business shouldn't be able to invoke eminent domain. When the government uses it the property owner is compensated for value. Unless there is a BS bankruptcy involved. Sorry I couldn't help but throw that in.
|
No need to apologize. I didn't think you came across the wrong way, I just didn't want to see John get defensive since he seemed pretty careful in his article to indicate that he wasn't advocating either position regarding eminent domain.
Concerning the fair value issue, I think that's another reason why I'm highly skeptical of eminent domain.
About 10 - 15 years ago the Seattle voters approved building a monorail system to address traffic problems - the voters were painted a Disneyland like scenario but that vision didn't last long. The project soon ran into delays and cost overruns and ended up dying when voters would not approve additional funding. The city had bought several pieces of property via eminent domain and then proceeded to sell them at a profit once the project was dropped.
It was argued that the property should go back to the original owners but the city officials indicated the laws on the books precluded that option.