As Tyrius mentioned, there are a lot of big "ifs" in your scenario.

More importantly, since you're so willing to vacate the premises for the corporate good, wouldn't the more appropriate course of action involve you negotiating voluntarily with Acme Corp. and selling your property to them, one private entity to another?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

[reply]It's fungible to me--a house or cash. I can turn cash into a house and I can turn a house into cash. As long as I get adequate compensation for it, then I really haven't lost any "property."[/reply]

You don't get to determine what's adequate compensation though.
Cities generally value property at a rate lower than real estate. So a house worth $250,000 might be assessed at $150,000. That's how much money you're getting.
Not the real market value. $100,000 buys a lot of "property".

That wouldn't work. The Corporation needs to receive the land free from the local government as a subsidy for the promise of a larger tax base. So the government must use it's condemnation discount to get the property at bottom dollar, and then give it to Acme. If Acme was to buy outright from a landowner who wants to keep her home, then a free-market economy would have to kick in, and the corporation would have to pay for a person's (emotional/historical/convenience/etc.) attachment to their private property. God forbid.

---

==================================
but I can deal with the angels, cause it ain’t me they’re here to claim. it’s a good night for blowing ‘em off til some other day

exactly, they don't say fair market value.

they say fair value. big difference in removing that one word.

I agree and that is why you have to watch them--go to city council, county commission, zoning board, etc., meetings and make sure what they are doing is really for the "public good" and not just to benefit their buddies. Stop them if they aren't doing something good or vote them out. There are many examples of citizens doing just this thing all over the country.

That's completely lame. What you're basically saying is that any restriction on governmental power is superfluous, just so long as you gots elections sometime.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

It'll be great voting them out of office, but in the meantime my house is gone and I got screwed so voting them out of office doesn't really do much for me at that point.

No, that's not anything like what I said.

No, that's not anything like what I said.

Sure it is. Hey, we don't need to have any rules saying the government can't take my house. If I don't like it, I can just vote them out next election time. Sounds great.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

---

_________________________________________________
That is just one more group of people that should be thrown screaming from a helicopter- George Carlin

what good is voting them out going to do if my house has been destroyed by then?

---

f/k/a mclamb6

"buy as much cheap junk from China as possible"

Where was your bike made? For that matter, where do you think most of your tri-gear is made? In the USA? Think again.

Where was your bike made?

France, I think. It's a freedom bike.

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."

I can think of nothing more likely to kick off the second American Revolution than the logical (not hysterical) extension of this ruling.

This is not a fringe issue. The stable homeowning class is directly threatened by this and will see themselves as the dispossessed as soon as some abuses get publicized.

Look for the various legislatures to pass what may appear to be limiting legislation. (but not really much of a hurdle if the developer is truly motivated.)

Your idea of watching them by following things through the system is a nice thought, but the development side gets PAID to go to those meetings. The friends of the targets will lose interest over the long term.

sez the guy who has done some redevelopment work.

I think this calls for another boston tea party.....when it becomes okay to bulldoze houses for a hooters/walmart/officebuilding...its time to rise up and smite somebody.........

---

_________________________________________________
That is just one more group of people that should be thrown screaming from a helicopter- George Carlin

I could point out how horrible this decision is...
I could point out how bizarre I find it that all the "liberal" justices (save O'Connor) were in favor of putting luxury hotels on top of old people's houses while Scalia and Thomas were not...
I could point out how the only people that ever get screwed by eminent domain are those who can't afford good lawyers...

But I won't. There is one lesson from this. Connecticut is the enemy. Not terrorists, not fundamentalists, not the French, not even the New York Yankees. We should give Connecticut back to the British. Worst. State. Ever.

rob

You lefties and righties love to sling shit all over this board about how stupid the other side is. Y'all say all the same things everyone on your side says but claim to be orginal. So while one side blames the other for the end of the world the burocrats sneak in and take what they want.

Under our noses our freedom will be taken but will always be able to blame the other guy.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

I agree that the blame game gets a lot of use.

I think abusing eminent domain for essentially private purposes WILL unite lots of diverse groups. This could be the issue that does it.

I hope your right. That would be beautiful.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.