Replies

It should be noted, BTW, that the entity that purchases the property is not the same entity that determines the "fair market value." Most court cases involving eminent domain proceedings have nothing to do with the legitimacy of the forced purchase (the state's right of eminent domain will almost always stand up in court) -- they are simply battles over the "fair market value" of the land.

I don't know about this specific case, but many of these "fair market value" proceedings are nothing more than a charade on the part of the property owner. If you do a little research into some of these cases, you'll often find situations where the property owner was forced to sell his land for $200,000, but he fought it in court by contending that the land is actually worth $500,000. Lo and behold! -- a careful look at public records reveals that this same land owner successfully appealed his last tax assessment by claiming that his $250,000 assessment should have been $200,000.

The properties worth -- given it's prime location -- at least $150K an acre, developed. The Development Rights offer of three million is not untypical -- these are made to lock up the title with convenant restrictions to prevent development, or to only allow certain uses. Such convenants may be written as "perpetual", yet are challenged and won against, or just overlooked at later dates. One ploy would be to subdivide and in the subdivided title to "lose" the covenants.

That of course, would not make the convenants unactionable -- for a court, when title was traced, might uphold them -- but in fifty years -- who would take the action? Pursuing a court case like this is about as efective as any third-party amicus and risks the expense.

This partcular case is theft. About $6 million dollars -- where's Willie Sutton, these days?

Willie Sutton was the infamous the bank robber who said when asked why he robbed banks, "Bbecause that's where the money is"!

New Jersey has been very aggressive in setting big pots of open-space money in front of small town boards. A small town might run a 2 million budget a year -- with open space, make that 22 million, 60 million, even more. Bada bing. You bet there's plenty of pot chasers running for office to catch ahold of that big pot.

Yet in the mix of cozy self-renumerative deals a board must also show some evident progress towards open space. Why then, grab by eminent domain a parcel at the price of a songbirds's feed. And better the "eco"-activist judiciary to support it, failing to support the grand open-space moola project might impair the general ability to pick constituents wallets, for some misguided public evocal of governmental irreponsibility and corruption.

My, my, my... You have got to be the champion of all rationalizers! The courts are the last refuge of the individual and his/her inalienable right to own land. Here we have a clear-cut, classic case that flies in the face of a constitutional representative republic and you are trying to defend the tyranny of the majority as if this were some kind of "Mobocracy," (aka Democrazy)!

This nation was founded on the principle that men/women had a right to own and control real estate in order to have life (a living), liberty (personal responsibility and control) and the pursuit of happiness (freedom of decision making). You seem to want to rationalize all that and desperately explain it away.

That may be the way it is/was up in Alberta... but not here! Our ancestors died in battles to defend this dream/right!!!