• n2burns
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I think you’re right. I’m from Canada, so laws might be different, but AFAIK, eminent domain means the owner can’t say, “No, I’m not selling” to the government, not that the government has total control over the price. Landowners can also argue that losing that portion of land will negatively affect the remaining property and argue in court to be compensated.

    • mayotte2048@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      And since California has Prop 13, i wonder if landowners can sue for the future tax increases for the replacement property? Afterall, that is a direct consequence of the forced sale of the land.

      “You are increasing my property taxes forever. So you should be responsible for that increase… forever.”

      • n2burns
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Good Point!

        Site Note: A family member who lives in California recently explained how their property taxes are calculated, and that system is crazy! That system encourages people to never move, which probably contributes to housing issues because seniors are dis-incentivized from down-sizing, etc.

        • mayotte2048@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yep.

          We used to have the problem of senior citizens having their property taxes jacked up every year to the point that the taxes are almost as high as the original purchase price. Bunch of seniors were ending up losing their houses.

          Prop 13 was designed to fix that; and it did, but it also caused a bunch of ‘unintended consequences’.