[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
do it on kelo and how the homeowners could have won the case if they would have argued that they were unfairly compensated, rather than that the gov couldn't take their property.

I mean, it's easy for gov to take property at 20 cents on the dollar, it's much harder for them to take it when they have to pay 200 cents on the dollar (future use can increase property values).

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you are speaking rhetorically here and not the specifics of Kelo. It is highly doubtful that they wouldnt have raised just compensation as an issue if the offers were signficantly undervalued. Given the status of New London at the time the property values were so depressed that market value (or market value plus a premium) would probably have been offered just to avoid the litigation costs.

If your parenthetical is meant to imply that a holdout owner should be compensated for increases in market value due solely to economic gains from the project the land is being seized for, you are incorrect both legally (SCOTUS) and ethically (imho).