[at-l] A Question Of Trail

[kahley@ptd.net (kahley)]

At 10:51 AM 4/4/02 -0500, Bob C. wrote:

>  Instead  it  managed  to convince political forces to pay it $4 million 
> for two
>  percent  of  a  aki  area  worth $5 million. I think Jim, you need to 
> study the
>  facts before commenting on these complex issues.
>
>  Weary

Bob, if you know for sure, can you tell me if that 5 mil figure was based
on the current or rather, what was then the current valuation of the
property?  What I'm thinking is a piece of property that is tied up in
tape re: future development does not have the same "value" as one
where there are no such complications?  If so, the hypothetical,
developed value may have been much in excess of 5 mil?
I didn't put that too well?  If I own a piece of property and if I was allowed
to do anything I wanted with it, it might have a value of X.  If I was
constrained as to what use I could make of the property, it devalues
the property to less than X. or 'Y'.   So..if the government sought to 
recompense
me for the reduction in the value of my property caused  by the limits the
government sought to impose on my use of my property, would
it not be considered fair to pay me Y - X ?
Jest trying to understand....