patzky99 asked:
the policy of eminent domain allows for public seizure of private property. it’s legal if the government entity can demonstrate that the property in question will be improved for the public good: usually new infrastructure (a street, park, or parking lot) or a new development. (residential or business) the previous owner IS compensated for the loss.
the policy of eminent domain allows for public seizure of private property. it’s legal if the government entity can demonstrate that the property in question will be improved for the public good: usually new infrastructure (a street, park, or parking lot) or a new development. (residential or business) the previous owner IS compensated for the loss.
do you think this is fair? is it reasonable to expect a property owner to up and leave if the local government tells him or her to? what if the property owner feels that the compensation offered isn’t sufficient? should you ‘fight city hall′?
what’s your opinion?
fyi: i did a yahoo search on eminent domain in my hometown, and the first two entries were directions on how to find eminent domain lawyers… maybe i just answered my own question!
here’s one course of action property owners may choose…
http://www.handsoffmyhome.net/
New Breakthrough Money-Making Technology