This is a non issue. It is a matter of power. Govt got it ...you don't. Govt uses force. The people granted govt the power of eminent domain. If the Govt proves a value for the many then Tough friggin pattooies they take your land. same with Income tax. They take it. No different. The same with the Native Americans. They were moved and compensated by the same use of force that the people authorized for the government. Don't like it? protest. It's your right. If the majority of the town, boro, parish or state say no then there is no case for the public good and the Govt backs off. Or at least should. . .

Private deals are different. No one can force you to give up title to your land. However they can build high rise apartments and block your river views, hide the sun or whatever. .

Eminent Domain is a thinly veiled act of theft. It's still theft. It's what GubMint craves.

If they want to build the dam, they need to buy his property at a fair price, which is the price that the buyer and seller agree upon in the free market. Gubmint coercion doesn't make the price The Gubmint says, "fair." To build the dam and flood his property without his consent or without buying the property is an unconscionable act of aggression.

Some people just want to live at their home for the rest of their lives and dont want to move. A bit irrational I would say, but to each his own.

Who gets to decide whose greater good gets precedence? I would say that this guys "greater good" is no more or less valuable than the greater good of the people who want to build the dam

Wait till he dies or moves I guess.

"Wisdom" and "The Supreme Court" are terms that maybe should not appear in the same sentence?

Greetings !
When I hear the term, "Greater Good" or other varients, my Ozzie Senses start to tingle. "Greater Good" is historically determined by politicians. These are folks who are typically, but not always, sociopathic monsters. The remainder are mostly do-gooders, the most dangerous creatures. And "reasonable price" ??!!??. That is determined in the market between a willing buyer and a willing seller.
Thanks !
Oz

Because people needed water, and dams were built.

Most of these towns are now under some lake created by a dam. The full history of government corruption for the greater good may never be known.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...

How could water have been supplied assuming there was always at least one person that refused to move? A real world question, and big government has one real world answer.

Me too. Why are you asking?

The begged question is "What is a reasonable price?"

During WWII the Tennessee Valley Authority was born out of the needs of the Manhattan Project. Here in my home state Kelo v New London remains an colossal embarrassment on the wisdom of the Supreme Court.

IMHO, all potential Eminent Domain cases lie somewhere in-between those extremes.

Build the dam somewhere else!!!

Then offer him double the "reasonable price." Any man has his price.

In fact, the question is incomplete. If everyone has sold, everyone else will be moving out. Then your one man has no neighbors, no places to trade...

But in all honesty, the man's just trying to see how badly someone else wants to build the dam.

I haven't even addressed "greater good." In this forum, that wouldn't apply. The scenario is more like: Anthony B. Kirby (Edward Arnold) wants to build a dam. But Martin Vanderhof (Lionel Barrymore) sees no highfalutin' need to move. He's content where he is--and in fact he's got a bunch of neighbors, who live in rented housing, hoping that Martin Vanderhof will not move. In the middle of this is the romance between Anthony B. Kirby, Junior (James Stewart) and Alice Sycamore (Jean Arthur), daughter of Paul Sycamore and Penelope Vanderhof Sycamore (Spring Byington).

A paraphrase of the plot of You Can't Take It With You, with Lionel Barrymore, James Stewart, Edward Arnold, et al., based on the stage play by George S. Kaufman and Moss Hart.

Their land would not be worth that much if it’s now underneath the new lake.

Me too.

When I see the words "greater good" my automatic reaction is suspicion.

Well, what is the persons recourse if they stay, and the dam is built and dammed up? [The value of their land/possessions?]

I think the land would be worth a lot less at that point.

And personally, while I don't care for the scenario, his right to OWN his land, should NOT have a bearing on what others do with their land.
Hence, they can dam it up, who is he to stop them from exercising their rights?

The whole point of a civil society is to spell out these kinds of things. And frankly, with enough advanced warning... This person should LIVE, and be made whole. What would happen if it was destroyed ACCIDENTALLY while trying to dam around it?

the challenge for me is in the definition of "reasonable" on the price. Honestly, what's reasonable to a buyer MAY NOT be reasonable to a seller. If you bought with a 30 year investment horizon, then the price at 10yrs is NOT reasonable. It may be the current market value.

This gets into the intersection between two sets of rights... (I am assuming it is immoral to kill them in their sleep, and torch the evidence, then using Clinton Body Bags: Come with "Suicide" Death Certificates already signed)...

eminent domain????????????????

I could see a point where thirsty individuals in the area could become so frustrated with this person that they ostracize the whole household. This could mean refusing services and resources, such as food and water.

-- how to get dams built if --

A question I did not expect on this site, but worth considering.
There are all kinds of possibilities but the (non-Objectivist) position of state intervention does not look good to me.
I allow that there may be circumstances to justify forcing sales, but I know that this power if available will be over-used and mis-used.
------------
Try this thought experiment-
An investor, (individual, group or corporate), expects a growing demand for the services of a dam -eg. irrigation water or hydro power.

They estimate revenue and timing, capital and operating costs and do an evaluation leading to a 'go-ahead' decision with $x available for purchases eg land. The project starts, a land-owner refuses to sell. The project stops. If the price is high the investor will consider cutting other costs, or selling more product or charging more, this could also stop the project. Then, this or other investors look for alternatives to supply that service. Such alternatives would likely lead to higher prices. Industry can grow but not as fast as for the cheaper first and canceled choice. Or, there is no alternative. Then competing areas, other districts, states or nations, get the growth. That land-owner has lost out and has effectively been fined by the market as his land value has dropped.

Let's add a twist to this topic. What if that private land is needed for the national defense?

How would the vast number of dams ever get built? Would they ever get built if even one private property owner never wanted to sell?

JB says-
Nothing. Correct.

Some thoughts come to mind -
I have seen pics from China(?) with a small property completely overshadowed by an overpass. I suspect the owner was offered nothing.
A dam 'needs'?
The power company needs?
The needs of the greater good?
Anyway, this is a very common situation in commercial development where an existing property owner does not think in money, or more likely wants to get all the future profit of the proposal for himself. These situations do not require outside intervention.
Compulsory aquisition, in theory a tool for the public good, is more often a tool for enrichment of those with good connections.

Nothing. There is no moral requirement that the one person must sell his/her property (to give the sanction of the victim) for the "greater good".