[clamprecht]

Would you argue that the guy who has owned the beautiful un developed downtown property for 16 (or 60) years should be forced to sell it to build a W hotel because it's a "better use" of the land? How about building an orphanage? To me it's the very definition of property rights. I get to do what I want with my property, including doing nothing (as long as I don't otherwise break the law).

[PhantomGremlin]

I wish your view was the law of the land. But, very unfortunately, it's not. Read about this US Supreme Court decision and weep: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

The dissenters were very upset about "reverse Robin Hood", i.e. "take from the poor, give to the rich".