Boomers are the fucking worst.

And why isn’t childcare being respected in our society as a career?

There’s really no such thing as a one income family unless one of the spouses is a one percenter.

Having been in a family with a stay at home parent and two working parents,

because men are still fairly reluctant to leave their jobs to stay home.

You can’t sue someone for laying off all their workforce (well, not from the property value stand point). The auto makers leaving doesn’t directly impact your property itself. If the land they left is a hazard and leaching toxic chemicals into the soil surrounding the site (or spreading radioactive fallout), then you…

I don’t know where the family’s number comes from either. I think the court is the appropriate venue for resolution.

If the airport dumped a bunch of fuel on your land and blocked access so that you could only get to your land with 24 hours notice, yes you could sue and be successful. Who you sue would depend on the airport, you could start with the metropolitan council, maybe the county, port authority, whomever.

Right, but in your example the owners of the superfund site are now liable for the loss of value and utility of your property. So the government can pay them for the impact of government activities (nukes, the security interference, etc...), and then pay them for the current value of the land on top of that.

A collection of Christian institutions who basically can’t stand the idea of their employees using birth control

Coming from gear paradise and now stuck in Michigan is like going from heaven to hell.

I don’t disagree with that at all. Civil trials are always a gamble. I think their best chance at the most money is what their lawyer is pushing, trial by jury.

Why do you say that’s the only appeal? There is some simple math, and some fairly simple legal instructions that go with this. The emotional appeal is being played out in the media, how do we really know what is playing out in the courts? A judge isn’t even going to take this to trial without a $$ position from the…

Ok. You reeled me in. Now I see through your rediculous position that you are trolling. You got me.

I’m not saying that eminent domain shouldn’t apply. It should. But part of that is paying a fair price for the property (as per the law). I think this is going as it should, through the courts, and hopefully an impartial Judge or Jury will weigh the case and the arguments and decide on a fair price.

You mean we should just let them keep the land and have unfettered access to said land? Absolutely, I’m with you.

Or, we could do the right thing. You want to base it on the current state without regard to how it got there? Fine, then lets have the government pay a separate settlement for the impacts to the operation and condition of the property directly due to government operations. I’m fine with that too.

I hear you but they are entitled to compensation based on the loss in value due to their neighbors activities, including restricting access and spreading fallout on the land. If my neighbor has a right-of-way across my property for access to their land, I can’t just block it off except for alternate Tuesdays and say…

The value could easily be set for the property were there no restrictions on access and operating hours. That is the proper context in this case, since that is the way it was before their neighbors started engaging in activities that interfered with the use of the property.

What I read from the article is that they are willing to be moved, they are not willing to be screwed on the price. Now this will go through the courts and have a judge or jury decide on the price based, hopefully, on the facts of the case, not sentiment of the family, and not expedience of the government. Ideally the…