[Torie]

First, the government announces that the area you live in is "blighted." Conventional wisdom should tell you that the market value of your home at that point has decreased significantly. There aren’t too many folks shopping for "blighted" homes. So once this happens, the government (the ones who want to take your home), come in and appraise it to determine their version of fair market value. An obvious question arises, how do you determine the market value of something without going to the free market? You can’t measure the supply and demand, because at this point, your home is the supply and the only demand is coming from the government.

This statement assumes that fair market value is determined AFTER the threat of condemnation arises, and has reduced value. That is false. And the litigation of fair market value is a contest between appraisers for each side. What they look to is comparable sales. In this case, they would look at comparable sales before the threat of condemnation, and then probably use a trend line to the present based on the trend line in other neighborhoods.

In short, the statement is false.

[quietolong]

If you want to see how Gov. works. view my #11

Property Rights, Eminent Domain, and the Making of a Citizen Politician - (terrific story!)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1432842/posts?page=11#11

[etcb]

"Just Compensation" as used in the 5th amendment would appear to be broader than just "fair market value". If fair market value was all that was contemplated, the authors would likely have just written, “without paying market value”. Just compensation would appear to cover recompense for what is lost which could get into intangibles such as impact on the individual giving up the property. Does historical or sentimental attachment, difficulty in adjusting to changed circumstances, etc have any value? I think in the Kelo case, one of the individuals was a 70-year-old person who had lived in the home for her entire life. Would her loss be greater than an investor who had held title for a short time? Since the Supreme Court accepts that the long held definition of public use has changed to mean public benefit, possibly the definition of “Just Compensation” is now broader than just “Fair Market Value”. It appears a new review on the issue of compensation would be in order.