So if he paid $32M for the land and is arguing the government is destroying $30M of value by making a public beach (by law), well, public then he's arguing the property after the fact is worth $2M.
So he should take $2M for it right? Or he'd have no object to the State giving him $32M and simply taking the whole thing, right?
I'd be somewhat OK with these inflated property values estimates with eminent domain if the owner was forced to take $X-$Y for the remainder from any buyer.
So he should take $2M for it right? Or he'd have no object to the State giving him $32M and simply taking the whole thing, right?
I'd be somewhat OK with these inflated property values estimates with eminent domain if the owner was forced to take $X-$Y for the remainder from any buyer.