Watching the politicians hem and haw over this in my state legislature I've had a thought.

The arguement they seem most fond of is that while, yes, it's bad to take peoples land and give it to other people, that tax revenue sure is fine and there might just possibly be instances where it is neccessary "for the good of the people" (ie, the government.) If a government entity simply must take a citizens land to give it to another for "economic development" reasons, which always boils down to "We'll make more tax money", why not cut the landover in on a little bit of the gravy?

I know I'd be pissed as hell if someone else got rich off of land they basically stole from me. I might feel a bit better about it if I got, say, 2% of all tax revenue generated by said land for, say, 25 years. This would be over and above the "fair value" paid for my land up front.

This income would be exempt from tax by the entity paying it. ie: The city couldn't tax the part it paid you and the county couldn't tax the part it paid you, etc, etc.

Just a thought...