[JamesP81]

There should be a constitutional amendment: if land taken for eminent domain is no longer used for the purpose for which it was taken, that land has to be returned to the original owner if possible. And if the government lets private developers take ownership of property taken by eminent domain, someone should end up in jail.

[george76]

Some friendly democrat may end up owning a large office building in this prime location.

[Titan Magroyne]

There should be a constitutional amendment: if land taken for eminent domain is no longer used for the purpose for which it was taken, that land has to be returned to the original owner if possible. And if the government lets private developers take ownership of property taken by eminent domain, someone should end up in jail. I agree that the land grabber should suffer after fraudulently invoking eminent domain, but that still doesn't fairly compensate the former owner. One of the first things done after private land is seized is to demolish existing structures. Your home is already gone, and you've already moved your household elsewhere..

I'm thinking that the developer/municipality for all the seized land should be required to put in escrow the difference in what was payed for the land ("present use" value) versus what it's declared to be worth after he gets done with it. If development does not take place after a defined amount of time, or if for-profit, privately owned development takes place, the developer forfeits the escrow funds to the former landowner. It's only fair that the little guy whose land was wrested from him should enjoy the profit of up-valued land; and it gives the developer incentive to consider whether it's worth it to him to disrupt the lives of strangers.