Comments | pleaidian: Eminent domain

pleaidian

Eminent domain

Oct 05, 2005 16:15

"Following the decision, many of the plaintiffs expressed an intent to find other means by which they could continue contesting the seizure of their homes. However, the Supreme Court having disposed of the eminent domain issue, the only legal avenue left to Kelo and her fellow residents may be to contest the fairness of the amount that the city ( Read more... )

Comments 1

syarzhuk October 13 2005, 07:45:20 UTC

This is so totally wrong. My understanding is that until the payment is made to the homeowner, the house still belongs to her. Which means unless the city physically forced them to take the $107K check in 2000, the house still belongs to them - until the city pays the current fair market value. At the very least the $107K should've been invested with interest coming to the owners.
Second, the back rent issue is completely separate. The city has to pay (at least $107K plus back interest) and then can try to collect unpaid "rent". However, I highly doubt the city can even do so.