Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Much like the arguments for free trade (hi skek!), it seems just to me that those benefiting from the state action compensate the victims, through the state, for the harm they suffer. If the state action is truly net beneficial, everyone will still be at least as well off in the end.
|
But doesn't this broad reading of public use eviserate the takings clause? Seems to me that if this qualifies, then there are few limits on the Gs right to take the property. I think it would be different if the G wanted to take the property so that they could build a public hospital. Here they are taking from one set of citizens and giving to another, and the transfer of property only benefits the public indirectly, rather than directly.
Plus, the stories of the current owners are pretty sad. A couple of them were born in those houses and their families had lived there over 100 years.
