[cletus]

So if he paid $32M for the land and is arguing the government is destroying $30M of value by making a public beach (by law), well, public then he's arguing the property after the fact is worth $2M.

So he should take $2M for it right? Or he'd have no object to the State giving him $32M and simply taking the whole thing, right?

I'd be somewhat OK with these inflated property values estimates with eminent domain if the owner was forced to take $X-$Y for the remainder from any buyer.

[sdnlafkjh34rw]

That's not even how eminent domain works. You get the market value for the asset seized, not the delta in the market value for the asset remaining post seizure.

[harryh]

To the degree that this is true, that seems awfully unfair to people forced to give their property to the government without their consent. The government can just make you poorer overnight? That sounds bad.

[ballenf]

If it was reversed and the landowner was buying the road to join two large lots together, you could easily see the road costing a huge premium on the open market.

But I agree the state didn’t write the law that way because it would be too costly.

[harryh]

he's arguing the property after the fact is worth $2M.

No, he's not. What he paid 10 years ago is not a relevant data point in the calculation. What matters is the current market value.