[pgyanke]

You consider that a good point? I don't care whether they offered her $10 million, THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO FORCE HER TO RELINQUISH HER PROPERTY TO ANOTHER CITIZEN. Eminent domain is meant to be used (or has properly been used) to establish roadways and public usage. To take personal property from one citizen for the enrichment of another is not only immoral, it's illegal under our best traditions and most written law!

[still lurking]

I believe her beef was not eminent domain. She wanted a cut of the Costco pie. Her outrage appeared when she realized she lost the larger offer.

[montag813]

You consider that a good point? I don't care whether they offered her $10 million, THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO FORCE HER TO RELINQUISH HER PROPERTY TO ANOTHER CITIZEN.

Sure they do, if her elected representatives so decide. And she is an imbicile not to take DOUBLE what her house is worth. You scream "her property" like this is the old West, or like that movie "Far and Away". Give me a break. Most Americans stay in the same home for for an average of 7 years. Houses are just commodities. She could have bought a similar one in a nearby area for $400k and had $300k cash left over. Sounds good to me.

[Some hope remaining.]

Unfortunately, that's not the way it's used anymore. My parents were forced out of their home of 35 years in another state for, of all things,....a COSTCO. The city cut all residents of the street to the bone on compensation, too. They got about 70% of what a private appraisal said the land/home were worth.