At Least in the US They Still Have to Pay You When They Take Your Home
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
I would have thought this would have gone the other way, certainly with all the carping I hear on campus about property rights being the only rights not whittled away by the vast neo-con conspiracy.
The only bright light here is that they still have to pay you, but in the end the government now has the right to decide for the people whether or not they can live where they want to. Let’s be honest, I think everyone across the spectrum can agree on this… the rich and powerful will always have “better” ideas of what to do with your land than you do. Now they’ve just been enabled.
IlliniPundit has more, as I’m sure half the blogosphere does by now as well.
The village of Lake Zurich is seizing water front property in order to allow a devloper to build multi-story housing.
How outrageous!
I wonder now that the battle goes to the state legislatures if a coalition will develop between conservatives and liberals as used to exist on the expansion of gambling.
Comment by cal skinner | June 23, 2005
Thanks for the link!
Comment by IlliniPundit | June 23, 2005
While I consider it rude and inappropriate for small-time city officials to seize private property under emminent domain, this doesn’t surprise me. Basic high school government class, people. And it’s not like the property is being seized outright, the government does have to pay fair value. And as I recall the property owner has the right to have a second party assess the property value and attempt to get what they feel is a fair price. I’m not gonna cry me a river over some people that are being paid millions for lakeside property.
RESPONSE:
The don’t compensate you for things like moving expenses, which are sizable. They don’t compensate you for expenses of finding a new home. They don’t deal with the trauma of uprooting your kids and moving them to a new school. And now they don’t have to pay 100% FMV, why would they?
All they have to do is announce that they are taking a subdivision and home values instantly drop. Then they say, take our shitty offer and like it, because you can’t fight it anyway.
That, and it’s obvious you’ve never owned a home. People have some personal investment in their homes. Sure, they have to pay you, but where does this stop when the connected can say they have a better use of the land and boot you off?
Comment by David Good | June 24, 2005