Replies

"He has a constitutional right to be reimbursed. A right that smokers here just really can't care to give a crap about."

I have yet to see any of the pro property rights advocates on this thread say any such thing. I certainly support the business owner being justly compensated for this seizure of his property. The problem is that according to most eminent domain situations this is not a full compensation so his ability to recover any compensation is greatly hindered.

It would have been easier to allow them to run their businesses as they were and let them cater to their customers.

BTW, the junk science does not define "public good" that is required under the eminent domain statutes. If it does, then we better be prepared for any restriction a powerful lobby group decides would be good for the public!

The problem is that according to most eminent domain situations this is not a full compensation so his ability to recover any compensation is greatly hindered

I understand that but its one that could be pressed more successfully than the smoker arguments. The restaurant did have a business to cater to smokers and that business no longer exists. It is the total taking of a component of ones business.