SCOTUS rules that seizure of private propert for private development is ok

[Hitmen]

When did I say a hotel was a public service? Again, PLEASE point out where I said that. The government can't see the future. It is far better for them to have to deal with the situation as it arises, perhaps by taking small pieces of land from several people, than it is to just have them start building things EVERYWHERE out of the anticipation of POSSIBLE development.

What the fuck are you talking about?! I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you just forgot to read the article that everyone (except you) seems to be talking about, where the supreme court ruled in  favor of private land being taken under eminent domain for private use, for an office building to be built.

[Hazard]

Hitmen, you're a moron. I've stated, numerous times now, that I don't neccessarily disagree with the principal of seizing land for development. I'm not talking about the case that you seem to be fixated on you damned moron, I'm talking about the idea in general. That sort of thing interests me. This one narrow case isn't all that exciting.

[MyndFyre]

This one narrow case isn't all that exciting.

The problem is, that it is.  This "narrow" case opens up the opportunity in the entire country to petition local governments to seize private land in the interest of private development -- which would indeed help the public, but not in a tangible, direct way.

Your posts imply that you support the Supreme Court decision, which means that you support the knocking down of a private home to erect a hotel.

I think it's an abuse of eminent domain.

And Warrior -- if eminent domain was not available, the state of Arizona would be screwed right now.  I live in the fastest-growing city in the US for 2 decades running, and we've seen in 20 years a population growth from roughly 15,000 to 170,000.  I live right off of a highway as well -- the U.S. 60, which is branches to the I-17 interstate.  Just before I moved here, the US 60 used to only go about 7 miles to the east.  Now it goes roughly 25-30.  They also expanded it from 3 lanes going each direction to 6.  If the government didn't have the ability to seize land for something like this, we'd never have the infrastructure to support such a population boon.

[Topaz]

If anything, what they get out of selling the land ( in kinder terms ) to the government, is more than what they'd get from selling it on the market. There's nothing they or us can do about it, but at least they get reimbursement.

[Forged]

If anything, what they get out of selling the land ( in kinder terms ) to the government, is more than what they'd get from selling it on the market. There's nothing they or us can do about it, but at least they get reimbursement.

But in this case the goverment should not be the one setting a price, not if it is for Private development.  That should really be up to the property holder.

[CrAz3D]

If anything, what they get out of selling the land ( in kinder terms ) to the government, is more than what they'd get from selling it on the market. There's nothing they or us can do about it, but at least they get reimbursement.

But in this case the goverment should not be the one setting a price, not if it is for Private development.  That should really be up to the property holder.

But then the owner could ask for 100x what it is worth & if the developer really wanted that land they'd have to pay.  This way the gov can make whomever pay a reasonable price (I still don't agree with this type of imminent domain)

[Forged]

If they are not willing to pay the asking price tough shit.  They shouldn't be able to run up to daddy goverment and get him to make the person sell cheaper.