This is hilarious. Anyone who knows fuck all about expropriation or property rights knows this article is a joke.
I've put together many contracts for property rights and anytime you see $1 listed as compensation, it means there is another form of compensation being offered. A contract, of which expropriation is one (can be full or partial takings), requires consideration, something of value exchanged, to be binding. So when other forms are compensation are offered, $1 is always added so the consideration element of the contract cannot be argued against by a party wishing to nullify the contract at a later date.
Nobody has ever been forced to sell a property for $1. Not unless the value of that property was $1.
Nope. That's a huge waste of time to start that low and it actually hurts the government by doing so and here's why.
I'd guess (don't have the actual stat in front of me) that a significant majority of expropriations are completed through a negotiated agreement and not the full 15 month arbitrated process. However, in the cases where an agreement can't be reached on price and the disagreement goes to arbitration, you really want to be viewed by the board as having been fair and credible in all prior negotiations. If the land owner shows an initial offer from the government of $1, that is going to blow them out of the water right out of the gate and the board will lean much more favourably to the other side which will result in receiving a higher amount of compensation.
Just FYI, this rule applies to all courts, boards, tribunals, etc. So if you're ever negotiating something that may end up there, try to negotiate in your best interest, but steer clear of being overly contentious, unreasonable, combative, etc. When you walk into court/arbitration/etc. room infront of whomever will be ruling on the outcome, you really want to be the person saying with the evidence to back it up "I've tried to be fair and reasonable so we can reach an equitable agreement and they've just been completely unwilling to be fair or reasonable, such as giving completely unrealistic low-ball offers and that's why we're here now". Judges and such don't like having to spend their time on presiding over rudimentary proceedings with a backlog of other cases waiting and they really don't look favourably on the party who's forced the matter to come before them due to that party wanting to be a dick. So don't ever be that dick, it will bite you in the ass.
This is hilarious. Anyone who knows fuck all about expropriation or property rights knows this article is a joke.
I've put together many contracts for property rights and anytime you see $1 listed as compensation, it means there is another form of compensation being offered. A contract, of which expropriation is one (can be full or partial takings), requires consideration, something of value exchanged, to be binding. So when other forms are compensation are offered, $1 is always added so the consideration element of the contract cannot be argued against by a party wishing to nullify the contract at a later date.
Nobody has ever been forced to sell a property for $1. Not unless the value of that property was $1.
Nope. That's a huge waste of time to start that low and it actually hurts the government by doing so and here's why.
I'd guess (don't have the actual stat in front of me) that a significant majority of expropriations are completed through a negotiated agreement and not the full 15 month arbitrated process. However, in the cases where an agreement can't be reached on price and the disagreement goes to arbitration, you really want to be viewed by the board as having been fair and credible in all prior negotiations. If the land owner shows an initial offer from the government of $1, that is going to blow them out of the water right out of the gate and the board will lean much more favourably to the other side which will result in receiving a higher amount of compensation.
Just FYI, this rule applies to all courts, boards, tribunals, etc. So if you're ever negotiating something that may end up there, try to negotiate in your best interest, but steer clear of being overly contentious, unreasonable, combative, etc. When you walk into court/arbitration/etc. room infront of whomever will be ruling on the outcome, you really want to be the person saying with the evidence to back it up "I've tried to be fair and reasonable so we can reach an equitable agreement and they've just been completely unwilling to be fair or reasonable, such as giving completely unrealistic low-ball offers and that's why we're here now". Judges and such don't like having to spend their time on presiding over rudimentary proceedings with a backlog of other cases waiting and they really don't look favourably on the party who's forced the matter to come before them due to that party wanting to be a dick. So don't ever be that dick, it will bite you in the ass.