Vicomte13: I agree. That's French law, not American law.
Kevao: You agree? Aren't you the same Vicomte13 who wrote:
Land is, after all, just another commodity. Those with the greatest means who can negotiate the best deals should, in a free market, be able to oust those who make less economically efficient uses of it.
The freedom to sell or to refuse to sell is NOT the same thing as being "ousted" by someone with more economic means. So either you're not being serious, or you really don't know what your opinion is.
I am of two minds.
On the one hand, there is the very straightforward business view, which the Supreme Court made US law yesterday.
On the other hand, there is the directly conflicting view that views the right to family privacy and the home as a fundamental human right. This is not currently US law, but it is currently French law.
If I were a Supreme Court justice, I would opt to favor the rights of the home.
Since I do not get to make that decision, but I am a real estate investor looking to maximize profit, I objectively view what the US Supreme Court did as making it easier to do land business in America, as compared to France where the protections of the home are more.
I am being serious, and part of being serious is acknowledging what I personally believe, but also what simply is, even if I don't prefer the morality of it.
The US Supreme Court decision is bad for the security of private citizens in their homes and good for real estate developers. Since it is now the law of the land in the US, until it is changed, obviously everyone who is in that industry will exploit it. Myself included.