That seems incredibly weird as an argument. Either corner crossing is illegal, in which case the loss would be the actual value, or corner crossing is legal, in which case no damage was done and the private land was just overvalued. I’m not a lawyer, but I cannot fathom any situation in which the individual actions would be liable for having “caused” the decrease in value.
What if it were determined that people crossing would increase it's value? The argument based on cities with higher density generally commanding higher price per sq. ft. If 10 million people cross it a year, then they would have billions of dollars worth of land.
