DtC, “fair market value” is just that: market value. It isn’t use value or projected future value or even taxable value. It’s defined as how much you can get for the property in a fair and open bidding process. If you want to change that, as you so desperately do, propose an amednment to the Constitution that substantially changes the Fifth Amendment, and then get that amendment passed. It isn’t impossible.
I can think of a lot of scenarios that probably won’t make you change your mind, but only one that may: Imagine you are that little old lady who’s trying to provide for her own retirement. Imagine the developers are offering you the ability to keep your home and have a pleasant last few decades. Now, what would you say to the county that wants to screw you out of two million dollars and your fucking home?
Well, the Fifth Amendment says simply “just compensation.” The question then becomes whether “just compensation” and “market value” are one and the same thing. You might feel that they are, and you would be perfectly entitled to that opinion, but it’s worth noting that not everyone feels that way, and that historically the notion of “market value” has not always been assumed to be the only arbiter of “just compensation” in Western societies.
Here i’m not going to try and rebut your claim about what is and is not just. I just want to point out that your emotive evocation of “that little old lady who’s trying to provide for her own retirement” tends to imply that she’s on the verge of destitution and ruin. Give me a break!
She’s 67 years old. Even if she lives to be 100, the money the county is offering her would give her an annual income of about $200,000 a year. And that’s just on the principal, and takes no account of what she might receive from interest or other returns on investments.
I fully concede that this has little to do with the principles being debated in this thread, and that those principles can be debated in isolation from this particular case. But you look a little disingenuous when you play the “little old lady trying to provide for her retirement” card while you’re talking about a multi-millionaire.
This is true, however remember that Derleth is up against DtC’s persistent representation of developers in general as “rapists” and his invocation of satanic corporations, so it’s a bit unfair to begrudge him his little old lady. We don’t know anything else about her financial situation; she may have debts to pay off or any number of other commitments. And while I agree that it’s highly unlikely that she’ll ever be destitute or anything like it, we are talking about her main source of income for the rest of her life. Taking away a quarter of the capital someone will live off forever is not a lightly taken decision, no matter how well-off the person may be.
Ditto what mhendo said about “just compensation” not necessarily mandating “highest market value.”
I also will reiterate that I think the woman should be allowed to keep her residence. I think the county’s terms need to be adjusted upwards a little but in principle, they are not doing anything wrong.
I wouldn’t say it is working terribly well for Cuba, or the former U.S.S.R. Also, the countries that make up Western Europe are comparable to some of the poorest US states in terms of wealth.
I was wondering when someone was going to bring this up. “She’s still getting six million dollars! She should quit bitching!”
That’s not the point. She has a legal contract to sell the land for $8 million. If anyone else tried to come along and buy it for $6 million, she could refuse.
However, she will have fight in her hands, because you can’t say no to Big Brother.
The problem with Cuba and the former Soviet Union is their political systems, not their economic sytems. Socialism is not the opposite of democracy. You can’t compare the progressive democracies of Europe (which work very well) to the totalitarian systems of the old Communist Bloc. They have nothing to do with each other.
$6 million dollars is just compensation and that’s all she’s entitled to. She’s got nothing to bitch about. The Constitution allows this. If she doesn’t like America she can leave.
Oh, give me a fucking break. “If she doesn’t like America she can leave?” Knee jerk much? She’s not entitled to one red penny. There is no law that states upon reaching age 67 she was “entitled” to receive X amount for her property. Someone wants to buy her property and she wants to sell. The parties have agreed on a mutually agreed price for said property and the process is moving forward.
She’s got some developer willing to give her $8 million for her land. Who the hell are you to decide she shouldn’t get that much? Who are you to decide what someone else can do with their property?
I’m not deciding, her county is. That is their prerogative. Under the 5th amendment they only have to pay her just compensation. They are. Case closed. No rights have been violated. There is no such thing as a protected right to sell land to developers. It doesn’t exist.
Take your head out of your ass for a minute and read what i wrote. I never said she should “quit bitching.” I never made any reference at all to what i thought the woman herself should do. The point i was making, and which you chose to ignore, was that some others in this thread have been painting her as a poor old woman who will be left destitute if the county gets its way. I was simply pointing out that such a characterization is disingenuous, and adds nothing to the debate.
Which is why i specifically said: “I fully concede that this has little to do with the principles being debated in this thread…”
Well, because I don’t know anything about how to price real estate in general, much less large tracts of land for commercial development, I don’t think I’m qualified to come up with a “just” price for that land. I think a system that allows someone without that knowledge to determine what is and isn’t a just price to be unjust.
mhendo, I apologize for misunderstanding you. I’m letting my passion carry me away.
The county is trying to get for $6 million what someone else is willing to pay $8 million for. My problem with this is, the county has the power and the authority to force her to sell to them and not the developers.
It’s $2 million less than the other offer she’s received. If you re-read the article, there’s a statement that similar land went for $34,000 an acre- well more than either the $27,000/per the developer offered or the $20,000/per that the county offered. Don’t use the term “fair market” when it clearly doesn’t apply.
Please explain to me why they need the parcel with her cabin on it? Or why building retirement homes is “evil” for that matter.