[bobthepanda]

Of course not all of it is, but at the same time there are limits to how much benefit you can get out of it for the downside. In the West eminent domain's necessity is contestable, and thus it is used very sparingly and only when the benefits are undoubtedly much better than the downside; no modern Western country could get away with evicting 1.5 million people for a sporting event, or appropriating massive amounts of land to build speculative real estate when vacancy rates are in the double digits.

Is the benefit of running at full tilt in cities really worth it? You don't spend a lot of mileage traveling within a city, and cities are generally places where trains slow down and stop anyways. Combined with the very high cost of land appropriation in a city assuming fair market compensation, there's a reason why most places just don't bother with full high speed rail in urban areas.

[thaumasiotes]

> In the West eminent domain's necessity is contestable, and thus it is used very sparingly and only when the benefits are undoubtedly much better than the downside

Or for an alternative view, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London .

[twelvechairs]

The USA actually has a long history of extensive eminent domain use, although it has cooled more recently. As with most anglosphere countries lately its use has become more highly protested, challenged and politicized, making it a little more haphazard (and much more if those with economic ability to mount a serious legal challenge are involved).

In China its been used more regularly however compensation has been often ridiculously pitiful (although sometimes also quite reasonable and this has as I understand improved more recently). Sometimes we pay poor compensation in the west too though maybe not as bad.

Its also tied to China's communist past where land is for the public good (and typically only leased by individuals) as opposed to the west's 'right to land ownership' (i use inverted commas because its never really been an absolute right, even if people use the phrase).

Best practice in my view (as someone in the industry) is probably somewhere in between. I don't believe in a world of limited resources (as we are in) in indefinite rights of land ownership. I do believe however in fair compensation, which probably should be a considerable premium above an independently assessed market value (if the site was otherwise sold today, accounting for any other anticipated changes to the neighbourhood).

[bobthepanda]

> Opposition to the ruling was widespread, coming from groups such as AARP, the NAACP, the Libertarian Party and the Institute for Justice. Many owners of family farms also disapproved of the ruling, as they saw it as an avenue by which cities could seize their land for private developments. The American Conservative Union condemned the decision.[29]

As a result, many states changed their eminent domain laws. Prior to the Kelo decision, only seven states specifically prohibited the use of eminent domain for economic development except to eliminate blight. Since the decision, forty-four states have amended their eminent domain laws, although some of these changes are cosmetic.[30]

The mechanisms were adjusted accordingly as the public and the politicians they voted in saw fit.