Thought on eminent domain and "just compensation"

[Pat McCotter]

I was just reading the reason article "Revolting Development" (February 25, 2005) and this paragraph gave me pause:

=======================
The Fifth Amendment, which says private property may not "be taken for public use without just compensation," is supposed to protect people from such arbitrary redistribution. But compensation often falls woefully short of just. In dictating the price, for example, the government does not consider the very thing that supposedly justifies the condemnation: the highly profitable use to which the developer will put the property.
=======================

The IRS has just changed the rules - Jan 1 2005 - for valuing a car donated to charity. Instead of "Blue Book" value, the deductible amount for the car is what the charity gets for it. Well, how about eminent domain "just compensation" be market value or what the city gets for it when it sells, whichever is greater?

No I don't like eminent domain. This was just one of those "light bulbs" that glows brightly for a few seconds when I get angry while reading something.

Pat

[Russell Kanning]

I figure that shouldn't have ever been in the Constitution. How can there ever be "just compensation" if the person doesn't willingly sell the property.