The second problem with your proposal is that most condemnations are for street widenings and result in only a portion of the property being taken. While your proposal would solve the value of the entire property, it cannot address the issue of a partial taking. Those are the most difficult to value and since they occur most often, the problem is not solved.

Excellent thought experiment, and thanks to Adam for the Heinlein reference. Now consider the following, what if the city/state/nation (who has the incentive to cheat and put you in a higher bracket) would be forced to back it up by buying your property at that price? This would seem like an improvement on the property tax and LVT concepts, which both suffer from the same flaw that establishing a market price is next to impossible due to the absence of bids and offers. Of course, if we were still under a fiat money system you’d still be back to square one where the state could just print up some money and “buy” your property.

Again, I agree with you. I don’t for a second agree that government should have the power to seize property in order to increase their tax base, and I think the Supreme Court is wiping their collective ass with the Constitution by allowing it.

Short of finding some way to impeach the court, and short of armed rebellion, my suggestion will hopefully destroy most of the incentive for eminent domain, while allowing people to set the compensation they do receive when it must be exercised. I don’t think it’s right that property owners should have to “insure” themselves against having their property stolen by government, but I don’t see any other way, short of rebellion, to put a stop to it.

If we are to prostrate ourselves and give into the unreasonable seizure of property simply to increase the tax base by which our government exacts taxes from us, then we do not deserve the right to own property. We should be able to see the hideous threat which now is at our door step, one which the Supreme Court has given their blessing to. All those God given rights which so many have fought and died for are being dissolved, one SCOTUS ruling after another.

1. Accept the offer and sell the property.
2. Immediately raise the value of the property and pay several years of back taxes.

An interesting control on the abuse of the system by the owner that would otherwise be possible.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that our current eminent domain situation is acceptable. I would prefer, as you say, that the decision to sell was with the seller, and that they could set whatever price they want. I would even more prefer that eminent domain not exist at all.

This was more of a real-world reform that I think a lot of voters could get behind, and which would make a significant improvement to the situation. Definitely not my ideal, but a heck of a lot better than where we are now.

I would remind you that I mentioned that the value of any property would be determined by both the seller and the buyer. In the event that any governmental agency set as its goal to confiscate property through eminent domain, there would exist that point in time when an agreement on that property’s value would of necessity require mutual recognition. In other words, the seller would continue to hold the bargaining power which the buyer, that being the governmental agency, would either have to meet or walk away from. Were this not so, and unfortunately this seem so to be the case which exists now, governmental agencies could and will confiscate with impunity whatever they desire.

Our citizenry must stand up to government abuse, no different than those who stood up to the tyranny imposed by King George upon the colonists, a tyranny which could only be ended through a Declaration of Independence.

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Also, in your scenario, that gives cities a huge incentive to seize something through eminent domain. I.e. if I buy my house for $100K, own it for 15 years to where it’s “worth” $250K, but I’m only paying taxes on $100K, the city will definitely want to find a way to force it to change hands.

I think leaving the value of the home in the hands of the owner, allowing the owner to revalue it at any time, is the way to go.

Your idea has some merit; however, I would point out that property should be assigned value only twice, the first time is when it is purchased and the sale is recorded for tax purposes. That price was determined “fair” by both the seller and the purchaser and has nothing to do with what any governmental agency believes its value should be in order to exact taxes from the owner. The only other time property should be assessed value is when it is resold at which time the adjusted value, that which is determined by inflation, increased valued due to improvements or other transitory issues would be included. Again, the only determined value would be mutually agreed upon at the time of the sale by both the seller and the purchaser. That second transaction would be recorded for tax purposes at that time only, leaving the original assessment in force up until that sale, regardless of the duration of ownership and “assumed” value on the part of anyone other than the owner. Were this system to be in place, government would, out of necessity, have to budget based on fixed values and not have the ability to escalate values in order to satiate an uncontrolled appetite. Seniors in particular would not have to fear the loss of property long held in order to satisfy the next generations appetites.