One of the poor saps in New London had a ten-room house on a half-acre of waterfront, and the government offered him $150,000. That was their max offer.
He can't possibly find another similar house for that, let alone one in the same situation. Should he just be happy the government didn't kill him and his family in order to take the house for free?
Sorry to offend anyone :) I'm not saying I like people losing their land and being given a crappy price, or being forced to lose their house whether they like it or not. I just understand how a city might like the ability to get rid of low-income housing areas and the crime and deterioration associated with it. They get paid, we pay for it, granted, but we reap benefits later - that's the idea at any rate. One thing I would like is there to be very public oversight of any such goings-on and the like. Unless I'm wrong, this kind of power would be used in areas with no clear purpose or reason in its makeup, with houses right next to overpasses, condos and strip malls overlapping in crime-ridden areas, etc. I can't see it happening in nice planned communities like Reston in Virginia, for example.