[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
lol as much as you like. Provide a link where fair compensation wasnt received, until then its just a bunch of rhetoric. And "fair" means the value before the run up in prices due to the project itself.

[/ QUOTE ]

As pvn and kaj have pointed out, the compensation can only be 'just' if it is what the person who owns the property would like in exchange. But if the person was getting what he/she would like in exchange for his/her property, then there would be no need for the government to seize it. Therefore, compensation for land seized for eminent domain is never just.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this were true then all disputes over value would be unresolvable. "Market value" is called that because its a standard that can be judged by an independent third party from a review of actual transactions. One party's contention that his property is worth $200,000 when no similar property has sold for more than $50,000 doesnt mean that $200,000 is the "just" price.

Your conclusion points out exactly why theres a prolem with your defintion...you wind up in a situation where no compensation is "just", which is clearly untenable in a market based society.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what if a dispute over value is "unresolvable"? My neighbor has a picasso, he wants $2,000,000 for it. I offered him $50. We can't resolve the dispute.

SO [censored] WHAT? Should I run to some guy with a lot of guns to step in and make him sell it to me for some "just" value?