Tweaking eminent domain - some obvious shortcomings

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

1. "just compensation"
In my opinion a civic taking should be compensated by a minimum of
3 times fair market value as determined by 3 independent appraisals. Governments shoud not have the right to effectively steal property by offering below market value and property owners deserve compensation for disruption ,displacement and replacement of their current property. Owners should be compensated for moving expenses on top of the purchase price. 3 times market value might also incentivize corporations to get their land the old fashioned way - by BUYING it on the open market.

2. Owners of properties taken under eminent domain should be offered first right of refusal to purchase back their properties if the reason for the seizure doesn't pan out. Case studies about this would be the Ranger Stadium deal where as I understand more land than was necessary was seized, oh excuse me, justly compensated for, and then sold for profit later.

2nd case study could be the Big River Reservoir project in Rhode Island. 351 families were displaced in 1966 for a reservoir project that never happened. To this day, the land is unused. But I guess now that transfer to private entities is ok, I'm sure it will be on the market tomorrow to developers.

[Joj Bush]

1. Not needed

If you offer 3 times fair market value, they'll almost always sell the property anyway, and so the eminent domain law wouldn't be needed. But for eminent domain for public use, I think 1.5 times fair market value would be good. For private use, make them pay no less than what the owners accept.