seattle.politics

In News rlj3c3higagpv3bi2r6thlbmjoj7s2i6mg@ ,, Don Homuth at
, typed this:

> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 11:39:14 -0400, "Scruffy McScruffovitch"
> wrote:
>
>> In News iii3c351rhg9bl0lqjob1t0opmmem1fa8n@ ,, Don Homuth at
>> , typed this:
>>
>
>>> The owners Demand does not mean it's a Fair Price.
>>
>> It means that it is a fair price to the owner.
>
> Owners have, on more than one occasion, attempted to extort More than
> the Real Market Value of property

It is there property, the value of that property should be defined by the
owner. If the governmene does not want to pay it, then they can find other
property.

>
> Quite naturally and reasonably there is a Due Process of Law that can
> and will adjudicate the dispute. Says so right there in the
> Constitution.
>

Where in the Consitution does it say that the government can confisticate
property for private use?



>>> The Real or Fair Market Value is what's a Fair Price.
>>>
>> And if the owner doesn't want to sell at the FMV?
>
> That's why there's an Eminent Domain clause in the Constitution in the
> first place - to deal legally and appropriately with such rare
> instances.

That is called stealing or theft then.


>
>>> The means for discerning what that is are well-known, generally
>>> accepted, and are what the courts tend to rule on, if there's any
>>> sort of legal dispute.
>>
>> All nice and tidy.
>
> And legal and constitutional, which is even more important. It is
> seldom Tidy, however. The Due Process proceedings can sometimes be
> quite contentious.
>
>> The government wants your property,
>
> Nothing wrong with that, and nothing Has been wrong with that since
> the inception of the Republic itself.
>
>> ... the government gets to say what they will give you for that
>> property,
>
> The gubmint can make an initial offer, which the property owner is
> free to accept or reject. If rejected, the matter is open for
> subsequent negotiation -- which is what Usually happens until there is
> a mutual agreement. If an agreement Cannot be reached within that
> voluntary process, the Constitution provides for Due Process of Law to
> settle the dispute.
>
> That, however, does not mean that the government will make an
> arbitrary decision. The Due Process proceedings investigate those
> offers and consult with experts from various places, including those
> provided by the property owner, to determine the Real Market Value.
>
>> the government gets to define what is generally accepted.
>
> No -- what is generally accepted as the Real Market Value oftimes goes
> well Above what the government's initial offer is. Check the case
> outcomes, and you can see it clearly.
>
>> And you don't see any abuse in that,
>> right?
>
> I don't see any abuse in the way it Really works out.

That's because you're a government toady.