News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33904.0
Corrected several already and appreciate your patience as we work through the rest.

Main Menu

Canusa Street – How does this work?

Started by ghYHZ, March 16, 2017, 04:14:40 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

corco

#125
Quote from: english si on June 18, 2017, 04:29:55 PM
Quote from: corco on June 18, 2017, 03:01:33 PMAnd frankly, I'd bet CBP wants it that way - I'm almost certain they want these homes to go unsold and go away through attrition so as not to have to deal with these abnormalities. They can't overtly kick folks out and have to accommodate the people that live there, but they can make it miserable enough that nobody new wants to move in.
This is surely a practise employed on the highways? Certainly it was policy implemented on the A406 North Circular near Wembley in London: a 1930s arterial that was gradually widened to a 6-lane road that they wanted to make access controlled, so bought up housing as it became available and rented it out while they waited to get the set. About 5 years ago, they gave up and the houses are now far less grotty looking.

PS: is the MS/TN line barrier actually traffic calming? like this in Southampton, UK - there was a plan to make the whole city have a firm hierachy of streets with no through roads outside of the distributor ones and existing streets stopped up mid-way like this. They did a few and then left it alone.

It may be legal but would be a political nightmare.  I would think that a total taking of a property for the sole purpose of making it vacant/building a border fence wouldn't pass most legal muster. In the case of places where there is a border wall on the southern border, existing landowners get gate access to access their property on the other side of the fence, instead of an outright buyout of that land. I'm not an expert on takings law though, so I could be totally off base on that.


J N Winkler

Quote from: corco on June 18, 2017, 04:36:57 PMIt may be legal but would be a political nightmare.  I would think that a total taking of a property for the sole purpose of making it vacant/building a border fence wouldn't pass most legal muster. In the case of places where there is a border wall on the southern border, existing landowners get gate access to access their property on the other side of the fence, instead of an outright buyout of that land. I'm not an expert on takings law though, so I could be totally off base on that.

My general sense (based on the example English Si cites, and also the example of long-stalled I-710 through South Pasadena, where most of the properties in the way had already been purchased by Caltrans before the deadlock developed) is that CBP would not start with a "purposeful blight" policy.  Instead, at some point it would be announced that, to simplify frontier control, the properties would be purchased either through normal sale or through eminent domain; protests would develop; deadlock would result; and then any properties that CBP bought would be either rented out (caused considerable diminution in physical condition and economic value when Caltrans tried it with I-710) or demolished with the land left vacant (might be a less safe course since it could be argued that gap-toothing the neighborhood would damage the value of the remaining properties and prejudge any decision as to the appropriateness of clearing the area next to the border).

IANAL, but as a general rule the compensation that is payable for a taking is based on the difference in value with and without the taking.  It could be argued that the Canusa properties already experience diminished value as a result of difficult access to areas further within the US.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

steviep24




Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.