[TheOtherOne]

I wonder if the New London plaintiffs will get 'just compensation' that is in line with what the government is saying the property will be worth after their 'plan' is instituted.

Because if the property has that "potential" value allowing the court to justify the taking, likewise, it should have that same value in 'just compensation' to the property owner. In other words, if the price being offered were truly fair, the owner would sell. Obviously it is not a fair price to convince the OWNER of the property to sell.

[nygoose]

At least the Feds are not making it a hate crime for the property owner not to take their offer.

[Justa]

"Because if the property has that "potential" value allowing the court to justify the taking, likewise, it should have that same value in 'just compensation' to the property owner. In other words, if the price being offered were truly fair, the owner would sell. Obviously it is not a fair price to convince the OWNER of the property to sell.

Excellent point. A fair price is what the seller decides, not the buyer. What the Supremes just did was say the buyer determines the fair market value of property. If the seller doesn't agree the buyer can have the governement intervene to force the sale. Compare it to ebay. Image if ebay allowed buyers to set the market value of items and could intervene to force a sale if a seller didn't meet a buyer's price. What a scam.