I think the key is in who gets to define what is "proper" compensation.

There's no number high enough- at the end of the day people will just cry out "amagad but our homes!" and claim that that's priceless and forever want money and sympathy from everyone. A line must be drawn somewhere.

As long as the line is more on the side of the majority feeling it fair as opposed to a certain minority feeling it advantageous, then I'm fine with that.

If the price were enough, they would sell it. While I understand that this logic is not helpful when we try to develop the nation's infrastructure, we must not forget that we're imposing the desires of a more important mass of people at the depends of a tiny number of victims.

Plus there's the fact that in at least some US cases, the displacement is to allow space for a large business which will provide more tax revenue than the displaced could.

I do not believe that anything can compensate for loss of one's home. I do not know what's going on in the Occident but here in Istanbul on every flipping square metre they build a glass tower where they stuff people, and everyday neighbourhoods are killed and the city is resembling more and more those stock videos of Chinese urban areas. This cannot be compensated anyhow, regardless of where-ever it happens.

/rant

Would $1 billion in cash per household compensate? I believe for most people, the answer is "Yes, of course!" Is $1 enough? Of course not.

To me, that means the "right price" is somewhere in that bounded range and makes eminent domain conflicts amenable to financial analysis.

A possible example is the people living in ~500 houses in Camden (London). The houses are to be demolished to make way for a new railway, and they're not happy with the level of compensation offered.

If you go for London then you can look at all the council houses restructuring projects that pretty much kick all the non-(extremely)wealthy residents out of London by offering them well below real market value for their properties and then developing the council estates into luxury apartment projects.

This even happens with private properties that are bought under compulsory purchase for "regeneration". Owners are offered the value of the property as it stands, not the value of the land (which is much higher considering the development oppurtunities).