Maybe I am missing the details here, but it seems like the Bruces bought land in 1912/1920 for around $1,235 and sold it to LA for $14,500 in 1924. I don't know what the value of the land was in 1924, but isn't $20M a lot more than the present value of whatever thy were underpaid? The chances that the Bruces would have held on to the land and given it to their heirs (without any tax liability) for neary 100 years seem slim, if you look at how many families in LA have held on to the same land for that long. By contrast, when the City of New London took families' homes to demolish them and give the land to economic development by Pfizer that never reached its advertised potential, the US Supreme Court, led by a then liberal majority, said that was OK, and those families don't get their homes back now or ever. I am not a fan of eminent domain, for the Bruces or anyone, but it is hard for me to see why the Bruces were treated especially unfairly, or why they deserve a windfall today.

Maybe I am missing the details here, but it seems like the Bruces bought land in 1912/1920 for around $1,235 and sold it to LA for $14,500 in 1924. I don't know what the value of the land was in 1924, but isn't $20M a lot more than the present value of whatever thy were underpaid? The chances that the Bruces would have held on to the land and given it to their heirs (without any tax liability) for neary 100 years seem slim, if you look at how many families in LA have held on to the same land for that long. By contrast, when the City of New London took families' homes to demolish them and give the land to economic development by Pfizer that never reached its advertised potential, the US Supreme Court, led by a then liberal majority, said that was OK, and those families don't get their homes back now or ever. I am not a fan of eminent domain, for the Bruces or anyone, but it is hard for me to see why the Bruces were treated especially unfairly, or why they deserve a windfall today.

user
no
assistant