[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

As I understand it, the laws of each state vary, but that isn't what my reply was about. It concerned the rights of the developer who spent millions to purchase the property around that of the one holdout. Highways, yes. Redeveloping slums, no.

Well yes, a developer should be protected from people trying to blackmail them for millions of dollars for property that is worth far less. If you're in a City and you're living next to the slum, you might appreciate why you'd want it bulldozed and redeveloped. It improves the livelihood of the entire city.

[FourPeas]

A person's "want," whether they live next to a slum or not, doesn't override property rights. There's risk when making a purchase whether it's a developer who's gambling that he can get all parties to agree to a buyout so he can build his project, or the homeowner who purchases a house in a city that may turn into a slum. Risk is part of the deal.

If one takes a risk and it doesn't turn out, trying to get government to force the other party to forfeit it's private property rights is wrong.

[Karl Spooner]

Actress Suzanne Kaaren thoughts on her eviction notice from Trump.

In 1988 Kaaren was quoted as saying about The Donald, "He wants to buy up all of New York. The man is a greedy slob." She'd change her tune some ten years later when she told the New York Times, "He's handsome. He's very energetic. He's very ambitious. He's into real estate and beautification. I don't think he's into it for the accumulation of wealth as much as the spirit of development." She added, "He's wonderful ... I wish him the best of luck."

http://immortalephemera.com/11208/suzanne-kaaren-blackmer-biography/

[Jedidah]

Is using eminent domain to “improve the livelihood of the entire city” by taking the homes of poor people your idea of small government?