"A deaf congregation will receive $4.35 million from the California Department of Transportation, which razed their church to build a freeway ramp."
I tend to side against eminent domain, especially in the wake of Kelo. Traditionally, eminent domain has been ruled justified in cases where interstate highways are held back from expansion by, which may have been the issue here. But why can't the state bid for land like every organization?
2 comments:
But why can't the state bid for land like every organization?
Exactly for that reason. Because many an obstinate owner will hold up a vitally important project by refusing to sell at any price. The key here is that any citizen should be given the fair market value for their home.
And, as should have happened, the Kelo case has prompted legislative movement that will prevent as many uses of eminent domain for private development.
I acknowledge the benefits of eminent domain that you allude to, Westy.
But what's "vitally important"? In a free market, prices help decide what's important by gauging what people want.
When a bureaucracy is allowed to circumvent that process is when trouble arises.
"Fair market value"? Isn't that up to the owner and buyer to agree on?
Post a Comment