[xdem]

> It has been ruled that consequential injury does not constitute a taking.


Please examine "takings" cases at:

http://www.ij.org/index.shtml

[taxcontrol]

I'm aware of the Intitute for Justice. In fact, I'm on their mailing list and support thier cause.

However, in this particular case, I feel that the arguements against "taking" is far stronger than those for.

Primarily because the action taken was by the city against the city property. No transfer of private assest was done.

While I agree that this entire matter could have been handled in a better manner, I don't see any taking. Again, the may be contract violations through rental agreements and those will need to be taken care of - but I dont see a taking of private property.