[Dylan16807]

That's an awful solution. Some small fraction of people in the way shouldn't get an enormous multiplier over market value, in some kind of giant prisoner's dilemma auction.

If you offer the group a certain percentage of market value, that could work out well. But unanimous consensus is not a reasonable way to get land for big public projects.

[kortilla]

> an enormous multiplier over market value

“Market value” requires willing participants. If a seller doesn’t want to sell at a particular price and the good isn’t fungible (which housing is not), they aren’t getting market value by being forced to sell at a price determined solely by the buyer.

[Dylan16807]

Do you want me to say "taxable value*" instead?

If you think it's impossible to assess the value of a property, the whole legal world disagrees with you.

And yeah, the point of eminent domain is to force the sale on unwilling participants. If used sparingly and without discrimination, it's a good power, and part of living in a community that will undertake community projects.

* the underlying assessed value, excluding artificial caps like prop 13

[kortilla]

Sure, go with “taxable value”, but let’s not pretend it’s market value any more than the market value of a human life is what an insurance company values it at.

[mensetmanusman]

It seems difficult to asses land value when it seems to have inflated 100% in 10 years.