I see your perspective. Once you have decided that the guy with the gun to your head really means to have sex with you, the question of lubrication becomes pertinent.

I,on the other hand, prefer to keep my eye on the gun I intend to take away from the bastard.

When your property gets condemned, make sure to let us know if you still consider undercompensation a “wispy straw man.”

I’m obviously not a fan of libertarianism, however, I applaud your Kelo efforts.

Takings is a touchy exercise. When it is done for the sole purpose of stuffing public coffers it takes on a different guise.

Just as there is no argument to justify slavery of another, there is no argument that justifies seizure of property from one to enrich another merely on the promise of public coffer enrichment. That is all economic takings are. To take from individuals under government power with the ultimate aim being to enhance government power. Frankly, I don’t give a damn who votes on it. The right to property is inherent and without it we ultimately starve.

Why folks are discussing the wispy straw man of over or under compensation is quite disheartening to me. Of course, your argument that Ms. Kelo had the chance to vote for or against those who took her property is disheartening as well. Mobs vote all the time.

Because the great majority of condemnees do accept the [inadequate] offers, condemnors are reinforced in their behavior. So what if they get hit hard in trials of some cases? They make it up on the multitude of others where they get to acquire property below its FMV. The reasons for such low incidence of litigation are unfamiliarity with one’s rights, the cost of litigation (small cases with a spread of $100,000 or less cannot be litigated economically), a belief that “you can’t fight city hall,” etc.

More important, the judicially defined FMV — as SCOTUS repeatedly conceded — does not reflect the actual transactions in the market. It ignores elements of value that participants in real transactions insist on.

Add to that the fact that a lot of demonstrable economic losses are judicially deemed noncompensable, and any owner who would want to have his land taken would be irrational.

Finally, condemnation lawyers charge contingent/overage fees (a percentage of the overage above the offer) so if things were the way Levmore believes they are, those guys would starve.

However, he is almost certainly wrong with that statistic. We do lots of condemnation work at my firm, and the condemnor always tries to low ball you with their offer of just compensation. And even if you do get a close to market value award from the commissioners, it costs considerable counsel fees to get there.

So you are never compensated in full, even when the commissioners get the number right.

Dan Schmutter

One more reason the two are not quite comparable.

Not sure what your point is since I didn’t reference the 13A. Before the time of the 13A (and 15A), blacks generally couldn’t vote; slaves surely did not. Here Ms Kelo and other property owners had a chance to vote for the people who set up the plan in place.

Being denied personal freedom, by force, solely for the “profit” of slaveholders and being denied property, by force, solely for the “profit” of the state both spit in the face of liberty.

The fact both “spit” doesn’t mean they are comparably corrosive. Slavery is more akin to acid than saliva.

Also, the plan was for the ‘profit’ of the community at large. “The state” is not this faceless entity here but a local community voted by the people. “The people” are to blame here ultimately.

Being denied personal freedom, by force, solely for the “profit” of slaveholders and being denied property, by force, solely for the “profit” of the state both spit in the face of liberty.

The Roe comparison, however inapt, is a bit more credible.

Also, if 10% are unhappy, we are talking a decent number of people. So, Publius’ account is not really useful.