Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

VaderTower t1_j7hrekn wrote

Reply to comment by jttIII in Hotel of Terror in downtown Springfield faces condemnation by Maxwyfe

Not a perfect analogy. Sometimes eminent domain is necessary. Such as ... say a highway or an interstate.

Today it only takes 4 hours to get down to little rock, or 1 hour to get down to Branson. I'm old enough that I remember a time that wasn't the case. I've to old timers and it was a several hours journey to get to Branson or table rock lake, and Little Rock took 8+ hours.

If you didn't have eminent domain, one landowner could completely stall a highway.

In this articles case, they want to improve the bridge and make the area more usable. They can't because of this building.

−2

jttIII t1_j7i6yn4 wrote

You're correct that it puts the leverage in the hands of the original Landowner and that's the point... that's how I think it should be. And in the long term it would, I believe, sort itself out without heavy handed government strong arming.

It's likely obvious to me, you and everyone with a mind that there are profound community benefits to being able to make that commute... and because of that the original owner should be able to hold out for the highest value possible until another alternative becomes more economically viable.

The idea that at any given time your families 3rd generation farm could be split up for a highway and you get paid out by a less than honest brokers appraisal with little to no recourse is asinine to me and akin to a serfdom dystopia.

The only middle ground I could maybe concede on this on a principled level is if somehow your private property was like a national security blindspot... IE your farm in Maine on the border is a strategically important foothold for a bloodthirsty Canadian invasion.

Outside of that wildly extreme scenario I am of the philosophy I owe you and you owe me literally nothing nor either of us have a right to acquire each others respective properties without consent.

3