thebionicman, post: 413078, member: 8136 wrote: If I buy an easement for a limited purpose that's all I pay for and all I own. The fleecing occurs when the $800 strip devalues my property, then gets sold to others so they can hold me hostage.
The government should not acquire property rights beyond a stated public purpose. The public shouldn't have to compete with the goverment...
This discusion was not about easements it was about fee ownership. Easements cost less than fee. I have never seen the government aquire an easement that would allow it to be sold.
I don't understand your statement about competition. The government has to compete with the private sector when it purchases land. It has to pay the fair market value that is determined by the demand for the land by the private sector.
aliquot, post: 413230, member: 2486 wrote: This discusion was not about easements it was about fee ownership. Easements cost less than fee. I have never seen the government aquire an easement that would allow it to be sold.
I don't understand your statement about competition. The government has to compete with the private sector when it purchases land. It has to pay the fair market value that is determined by the demand for the land by the private sector.
The Government should only acquire real property rights to fulfill a public purpose. The point is they do not need fee title to open a road. The lesser estate of an easement will do just fine. When they take fee and the need ends, things get muddy. The reduction in value for remainder parcels isn't part of the compensation here. In effect the government takes a right they don't need without just compensation and sells it to someone who should never have been involved. The underlying owner gets slapped in the face twice. They do not compete for the property as private buyers can't condemn and would have to negotiate with all of the facts on the table. Not so for public takings.