Previously, I posted a question about the Supreme Court decision -KELO et al. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al.
In this case, it was decided that property could be confiscated "for the common good", but we are not talking about building a school, park, highway or hospital. The land was to go to a private company, a real estate developer, to build condos that the previous owners of this property would never be able to afford.
It seems to me that their property may have been their only investment, and they should have been awarded at least twice the true market value for their land that was confiscated. Otherwise, townships full of corrupt officials could run around stealing your property at any time "for the common good" and awarding reconstruction contracts to their buddies.
Did I miss something here?
2006-10-03
06:43:52
·
11 answers
·
asked by
Zelda Hunter
7
in
Law & Ethics