[annalex]

Consider the following law:

When a single property holder blocks the construction which by its nature cannot be located elsewhere;

When the builder had made an offer that would substantially improve the condition of the owner in comparison to the value he or his estate could reasonably derive from the property without selling it;

Then the court may force to auction off the property with the starting bid being the above mentioned offer.

I believe, it is far superior legislation to eminent domain, because it only applies to properties that block construction in a monopoly fashion and owners who demonstrate unreasonable recalcitrance; when it is applied, the unique character of the property and its subjective value to the seller are reflected in its price. It takes care of the truly unjust case of blocking, when a stubborn potato farmer would prevent a valuable improvement to the infrastructure simply because he only understands potatoes and wouldn't move to a better field a few miles away from the isthmus. The state here acts on the best interest of the property owner, after it's proven that he is incapable of a rational decision, as opposed to its own interest.

[secretagent]

Ugh! Now we have the State deciding that someone doesn't have rationality because they don't agree with the herd on the highest and best use of their land. We've gone a long way from the libertarian the enabling rule of non-initiation of force here. Someone can believe that the highest and best use for them lies in preserving their land as a potato farm, a nature preserve, or whatever, and his neighbors decide that he lacks rational capacity, intervening as "guardians" through the State!

No, unless we carve out an exception to land ownership, perhaps based on Georgist or Lockean principles, I think we have, with your proposal, a pretty clear violation of the whole libertarian approach to property.