Ray,
Now that I have a little bit of time, let me deal with your "question" more fully.
You wrote: "What do you think of the speculators who've bought up large swaths of the Carolina beach front, in spite of all sensible appreciation of the fact that any McMansions developed there would be prone to being destroyed in sea surges in regularly scheduled hurricane incidents, demanding that they be provided a profit from the counties that sensibly have curtailed said development? In other words, if a speculator is gaming the system, knows that his scheme is fraudelently conceived and has brass balls, should the community bend over for such boorish behavior, and reward it with compensation?"
Let us reduce this to a set of facts and get rid of your prejudicial language. Just the facts.
1993, X buys 100 acres of Carolina coastal property for $5.8 million. To the north is a 66 acre development of 2 acre vacation homes, to the south is a 225 acre golf course and resort area. X's property is deemed developable, although it is not currently under any sort of plan. Current zoning is for 10 acre lots, but X hopes to get that switched to 5 acre lots.
By 1999 the acreage's commercial development value has increased to $15 million. But in late 1999 the County declares the 100 acres to be valuable open seashore, excellent habitat for seagulls and some species of turtles, and determines that no building can take place in accordance with its plan.
After the County's ruling the 100 acres are deemed to be worth no more than $300,000.
Now, the only question, since we're leaving out "sensible" "gaming" "speculators" "brass balls" "fraud" etc. is how much, if anything, X has coming to him. There are 3 possible answers:
1) Nothing. He assumed the risk that the county would do this when he bought in 1993. Tough noogies. The county can take 100 acres for a public use any time it so wishes.
2) $5.8 million plus a reasonable, interest-rate of return.
3) $15 million, which was his reasonable expectation interest in his property before the county "took" it for the public good.
Now, cleared of all your misinformational and disinformational prose, this is the issue. Before you answer it, just apply it across the board to anyone's property: a house, a car, a CD collection, an inheritance.
These are the issues, not your ridiculous straw man.
3 responses, I believe I've covered the issue now.
Kb |
