Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I understand the impulse, but that's crazy. If the government decides to let planes fly into San Jose Airport after 8 p.m., must it compensate everyone in the flight path who has a plane fly overhead? Surely the value of their land is diminished.
And you're extending rights to propertyholders that they didn't even have at common law. The law of nuisance is all about restrictions on your land for the benefit of your neighbors. People have always accepted that you can't use your land in a way that hurts your neighbors.
And, re the post above, skeks is picking up the thread of an old conversation. His point, as I understand it, is that if the gains to the country of free trade are greater than the losses to some workers, why not compensate the later out of the gains to the former. Club seems to accepting that compensation is appropriate when it's propertyholders who receive it, but not when it's working men and women.
|
Every thing taken to its extreme is crazy. But I have read about developers who buy a piece of property and then the government decides that nothing can be built on it. Usually because of a lawsuit by an environmental group. Then the property becomes worthless. If the government decides that you cannot use your property it should have to purchase it. In other words, the government can purchase the property and then do nothing with it. There is a group called the nature conservatory that buys property and then lets it remain natural. They have bought most of Catalina Island. I have raised money for them. But Eminent domain can occur without the government actually physically taking title.
