[Brian Griffin]

It seems to be a taking for public use to me.

I believe compensation per Amendment V is owed to the homeowner.

Paying the homeowner is also the right thing to do.

[kaehurowing]

The closest parallel I can think of is the San Francisco Earthquake and Fire. There, the civil authorities dynamited a number of buildings and homes to create a fire break and stop the fires from spreading further. Subsequently the building owners sued for compensation, and the courts held that no compensation was due because the dynamiting was done pursuant to police powers to protect the health and safety of the city residents.

[Atticus]

Bingo! Takings Clause should protect this property owner.

[OddLane]

The best part of the "Republican Revolution" in 1994 was the (unsuccessful) attempt by freshman congressmen to revive the Takings Clause, which had been eviscerated for over a century.

I was a huge fan, at the time, of Congressman Bob Barr and Helen Chenoweth.

The fact that the Republicans had control of Congress for the better part of 2 decades and couldn't even rollback agencies like the ATF and BLM illustrates how useless their majority was.

[TexasGator]

“It seems to be a taking for public use to me.”

The public cannot use his home.