In these Kelo-informed days there’s no such thing as a lone holdout property owner defying a development. Cities simply take the property and sell it to the developer for the “common good,” which means more property tax revenue.
But there was a time when a person’s property was, well, a person’s property, and if he didn’t want to sell, the developer simply had to make do. Here’s a perfect example.
Some may feel the stubborn property owner in this case forced the construction of an awkward building. But, hey, that’s the cost of freedom. I think it was worth it.
