If georgism was implemented here, then the value of the lot would have increased very significantly with a house was on it. With the significant additional value, it's likely that the two parties would have been able to come to an arrangement that didn't result in destroying the house.
The root of the problem here is that the house is worth peanuts compared to the land, so the homeowner has nothing to gain from bargaining with the developer. We end up destroying something of value (housing) in the name of speculative land investment, which is a shame
In today's world, the value of the lot increased significantly when the house was built.
The owner certainly could have sold that property with the house on it, and bought a much nicer empty lot.
That is not however what the existing owner wanted to build on the property, and as a result the building is damage to the property
And why should the landowner here bargain with the developer? The developer did not perform basic due diligence on easily a 200k+ investment
---
That being said, georgism plays right into this issue without the developers negligence. With LVT any land with improvements that is not determined to be it's highest and best use will be bulldozed and replaced, which is also a shame.
Yeah, true. But if Georgism was in place I would think you would have less people owning prime property but living 2000 miles away and completely unaware what is happening on the land.
The root of the problem here is that the house is worth peanuts compared to the land, so the homeowner has nothing to gain from bargaining with the developer. We end up destroying something of value (housing) in the name of speculative land investment, which is a shame