Columbia University vs the little guy

Re:Columbia University vs the little guy by anthuswilliams on Friday December 17, 2010 @03:39PM (#2017684)

It's important to note that the valuation assigned by government appraisers is often well below what the property would be worth on the open market. When I was young, my grandparents were caught up in an eminent domain suit. They were to be paid about two thirds the worth of their home (the worth of their home, in this case, being based on mortgage appraisals[1]). If they had run a business, they would have also had to factor in relocation costs, downtime, etc. Insofar as the seizing body is an interested party, or operates via political pressure from an interested party, the "fair market value" is prone to work in the buyer's favor.

[1] - obvious disclaimers - This is anecdotal evidence, and it happened in the 90s. Perhaps there was a tendency amongst lending institutions to inflate their appraisals so as to justify offering loans with higher profit margins. But I still think my point holds.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Columbia University vs the little guy by eftpotrm on Friday December 17, 2010 @05:09PM (#2018054)

But this is surely an argument for better valuation rather than against the principle of forced sale per se. I'm not at all arguing that people should be forced to surrender for less than the true value, but I'm also well aware (my ex worked in this area) that each and every vendor will have an explanation for why they should get more money than it might seem at first. The customer who needs the land for whatever public good is just as restricted as the person required to sell and the whole point of this system is to ensure the seller gets a fair valuation while the customer isn't at the mercy of vendors gold-plating special cases for why they need more money.

[ Parent | on HN ]