A rural community faced unexpected and unprecedented growth, as individuals

and families moved away in droves from a nearby metropolitan area

into the suburbs, where they could enjoy lower property taxes and larger

footprint properties. In response to the growing population, the city council

wanted to build a new public park to beautify the community and retain

some of its rural, green-space feel. However, the community was landlocked

between the metropolitan city and surrounding suburbs, so any growth had

to take place within its municipal boundaries. City officials identified the

prime location for the park, a five-acre plot owned by a local resident. The city

offered a modest sum to purchase the home and land, which the homeowner

refused, claiming that the fair market value of the property had increased

significantly with the population boom. Using its power of eminent domain,

the city eventually condemned the property and took ownership of it, against

the homeowner's wishes.

Given what you know about property rights and social contract theory, do

you think the city was within its rights to forcibly claim the property when the

owner refused to sell? Why or why not? How would you have addressed this

situation, if you were a city official?