>>The general argument is whether something that is a public good should trump the needs of land owners.

You talk like there are these super wealthy land lords with nearly unaccountable real estate not willing to yield an inch.

The reality is, its some ones home. Just like I and you have. If you are destroying that, you better pay up good compensation. Which in most cases never paid. In my country(India) compensation paid is some thing like 5% of the actual land value.

Imagine some one just walking up to your home in full police gear, bulldozers and then just asking you to leave or get killed in the process of demolition. They will have the necessary legal documents and police support. You will be given some peanuts while you watch your property razed to ground. All in the name of 'public good'.

In New Delhi, the son of a judge used his connections to first acquire a land to build a mall inside a area which had very narrow roads. He built the mall, then figures out no one wants to visit the mall due traffic and parking problems. Guess what he does next? He further bribes officials and gets them to demolish a lot of homes to broaden roads, so that traffic and parking issues go away to help his real estate grow.

There was a massive uproar, as to how the whole system works. The supreme court of India, has now said no land can be acquired unless the owners of the land give a explicit permission and agree that fair compensation has been paid.

> You talk like there are these super wealthy land lords with nearly unaccountable real estate not willing to yield an inch.

You talk like they are not. My hypothetical people in front of the future straight highway are richer than your hypothetical people in front of your hypothetical highway. I set up my hypothetical situation the way I want, sorry ;-)

> The reality is, its some ones home. Just like I and you have.

We have a home? That is still more than a lot of people have.

> Imagine some one just walking up to your home in full police gear, bulldozers and then just asking you to leave or get killed in the process of demolition. They will have the necessary legal documents and police support.

Ok, imagining that. Wasn't that my point? One doesn't really own the land unless they can defend it from violence. You'd have to be a country with military in order to have a proper allodial title. In countries with lots of corruption the abuse is worse, I can see that, it is obvious. I was pointing out that even in "law abiding" countries that law is written to hide the underlying brutal fact that people don't really "own" the land. Someone else owns it and they just pay rent (disguised as "property taxes" in our case).

> He further bribes officials and gets them to demolish a lot of homes to broaden roads, so that traffic and parking issues go away to help his real estate grow.

Well there are 2 issues. Bribery and corruption and taking from people to build roads. Well the first one seems more pressing. It covers all areas of life not just imminent domain.

> All in the name of 'public good'.

Isn't there or shouldn't there be a 'public good'? What is your alternative to say everyone just building on top of all the public roads that access the city so there is simply no way to enter or exit the city because there are buildings in the middle of the road? Is that acceptable.

>>Isn't there or shouldn't there be a 'public good'?

Yes, but why does that always have to be at some one else's expense or by making some one suffer?

>>What is your alternative to say everyone just building on top of all the public roads that access the city so there is simply no way to enter or exit the city because there are buildings in the middle of the road?

Sound city planning.

It doesn't take much to make this happen. In my city atleast(Bangalore), I can tell you so many areas of the city that are developing even now don't have sound planning. Its totally reckless, and chaotic at its best. Absolutely no space for public parks, lots of open drains, narrow roads, badly planned water supply and sewage lines.

If you know for sure something is really going to grow, you might as well plan for it. Nothing really prevents governments from enforcing regulations even for private builders.

You're right that land ownership is more complicated. It always belongs to the state (I forget the fancy term for it but it's like 'sovereign ownership' or something like that).

You can buy exclusive exploitation rights to this sovereign property but the state can get it back upon your death if it's not passed onto anyone or otherwise accounted for.

And then there's eminent domain, which is actually specifically provided for in the U.S. Constitution so it's about as legal as things get in the U.S.

It's the difference between "ownership in fee simple" and a "freehold lease" or "freehold tenancy". I'm not aware of any ownership in fee simple in the US or Canada; it's usually the sort of thing that a Marquess or Duke has in a feudal sort of arrangement (you own the land outright rather than merely at the pleasure of the sovereign, be that a monarch or The People writ large, but you're required to defend it in turn). Smaller fee simple properties exist in England as well, often as the result of the grant of peerage in ye olde dayes (the Norman and Angevin periods mostly). For the most part, though, in the english-descended world, the most you can have in a property is freehold tenancy.

I believe you're creating a distinction that doesn't exist. What is the difference, in your mind, between a hammer or other object being seized by authorities and a piece of real estate being seized by authorities?

Your perspective seems very specific to California's tax structure. I wonder how you incorporate "use tax" into your theories.

> What is the difference, in your mind, between a hammer or other object being seized by authorities and a piece of real estate being seized by authorities?

The distinction is that to seize my hammer they would have to turn violent, attack, assault or threaten. In that whoever did this would basically expose what is really at the heart of the issue. With land there is a legal framework to disguise pretty much the same thing but using "ownership" language. In reality, to me it seems, it is not much different or not much different from land owners in medieval times giving land to their subjects.

> Your perspective seems very specific to California's tax structure.

I think it pertains to most states in this country. I don't know of many states that don't charge property taxes. Most countries have something similar.

In Great Britain (from what I understand from marginal discussions I've had) this is more obvious. All land belongs to the Crown and it doles it out to tenants who dole it out to sub-tenants and so on. These are often Lords and Ladies from medieval times and their heirs still collect "taxes" based on that ownership.

The exact same force is used in seizing a hammer or other object as in seizing a house. In both cases law enforcement will eventually arrest you, put handcuffs on you and take you to jail if you do not comply.

I mentioned the use tax, and that California does not have one. Do you know what a use tax is?