It states that in the article, "though a local myth persists that the road had to be split because the owners refused to sell the land during its construction.".
Having previously lived near there, I believe that the correct version of events goes something like as follows:
When the motorway was being built, a (non-compulsory) offer was made to purchase the land. When this offer was turned down, a Compulsory Purchase Order was initiated. However as the land that the house sits on was not technically required for the motorway, a CPO could not be made for that part of the land. The surrounding land which was needed and would have still fallen under a CPO was then sold and realising they would not be able to get a CPO for the house it was not applied for.
I've actually always been uncertain of why eminent domain works/exists seemingly sometimes in the US for private companies wanting to build developments. Or at least, that's how people seem to think of it. I've heard several people "forced to sell their home through eminent domain" because someone wanted to build a shopping center.
Is that true, or is that a misunderstanding of how it works?
If a developer can convince the local government that their shopping center (or whatever) will be for the common good, then the government exercises the eminent domain.
It has only recently become clear in the U.S. that federal law permits the use of eminent domain to help private parties do economic development. Have a read through the Supreme Court case Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), which is a totally approachable decision ( http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US... ).
Civil libertarians were not thrilled by Kelo and some have pushed for state or local laws that prohibit the use of eminent domain for private parties to engage in economic development. So, taking someone's land to build a shopping center may not be legal in some cities or states.
See also the Lost Liberty Hotel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Liberty_Hotel), a proposed hotel to be built on David Souter's land as a better source of economic development for the community than his house.
For a good time, drive to New London some time and check out the land that was under dispute in Kelo. It's still a sad, empty, vacant lot — although the Supreme Court allowed a developer to seize the land, they ended up deciding not to develop.
The developer and the homeowner almost always come to a voluntary agreement. Almost by definition, if the developer wants to build something in a specific location then the land is worth more to him then the homeowner can get for the property. The homeowner gives a "make me move" offer, the developer accepts it, and everybody's happy.
If the homeowner still refuses, then the developer will say, "Okay, thanks" and moves on to another project. Maybe put that shopping center a few miles away or something.
China is not a monolithic entity. Often the developer (or local / state government) is doing something a little dodgy, or rushing things. Mainland Chinese business culture often stresses high-context communication (i.e. little actual communication, and lots of guesswork) and a strong bias towards action.
From what I understand, there is much more dissent in China than is communicated in the West. We get a picture of a controlled society, and that may well be what the powers want it to be like, but in practice there is widespread dissent, both under the radar and in the form of open and large protests and strikes.
I can't believe Michael Forbes hasn't been mentioned yet.
His story was famously shown in the documentary 'You've Been Trumped' -- various tactics are used to get Forbes and others to relinquish their property so it can be used for Donald Trump's golf resort (including cutting water lines, and piling the surroundings of their houses with sand effectively ruining the view).
There are other countries such as the People's Republic of China that practice eminent domain whenever it is convenient to make space for new communities and government structures.
The farms in the middle of Narita Airport are pretty amazing. One second you're peering out the window of your 747 at a typical airport taxiway scene, then suddenly a farmhouse passes into your field of view for a few seconds apparently just past the tip of the wing.
Unlike some of the nail houses in the article, the Japanese government has basically given up for now on trying to get them to move. One house even has its own tunnel under the taxiway to so that the owner can get to his house.
reply