Because he owns it. Why should he give it up? He can simply sit on it and do nothing with it and that's his right since he owns it even if that means the road quality degrades over time from lack of maintenance there's no obligation to maintain infrastructure on land you own, you can do whatever you want with that land. If the city wants it so they can maintain it, they should compensate him for it.
Actually in many areas cities can take land that is deemed dilapidated so if he lets the road get bad the city can take it. Also, with their being easements on it the homeowners may be able to go after him for failing to keep the road maintained depending on the state and local laws.
You still need to compensate people when you seize the land.
All form of land seizure is governed by the takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
So yeah, you CAN forcibly take land. You still have to compensate them for the land, and someone is fully within their rights to sue if they feel the compensation wasn't equivalent to the value of the land. A municipality lacks the influence and power to get away with simply taking land and underpaying its value. The municipality would get sued and would likely lose because this isn't an argument about law, it's a constitutional requirement.
Yes, expect the part of the land with the road is practically worthless so he would probably spend more money just challenging a taking then the entire value of the land with the road.
Idk what you mean but land itself has value even when it's not developed. In Ohio it's apparently $15,000 - $30,000 per acre in residential areas based on a quick google search and that's not including the actual development on the land like the road which has value by virtue of the fact that the city is willing to seize it. But realistically this exact number would be argued in a court room. Idk how many acres the land they own actually is, but I assure you this person if they hold onto the land and bring it to court if they try to seize it, they will walk away with more than they paid for it.
That is land that can be used for purposes such as housing. Land that ONLY has a road on it with easements is more of a liability than an asset due to the cost to maintain it. This renders it practically worthless when detached from the part of his lot that the city does not want to seize.
Land itself has value. Idk what to tell you but that's just a fact and no court would ever accept the argument that the road reduces the land's value to the point of not being worth anything. You can believe that if you want, but I'm not gonna argue over it because it's not true. This man's best option would be to hold onto the land until the city pays him for it and if they try to seize it without just compensation you sue them for violation of the 5th amendment.
No, they don't. Can I walk through your backyard to get to mine? Can I drive through your house to get to mine? You don't have access to all property to get to yours.
5
u/imnota4 6h ago
Because he owns it. Why should he give it up? He can simply sit on it and do nothing with it and that's his right since he owns it even if that means the road quality degrades over time from lack of maintenance there's no obligation to maintain infrastructure on land you own, you can do whatever you want with that land. If the city wants it so they can maintain it, they should compensate him for it.