<$BlogRSDURL$> abbr, acronym { cursor: help; font-style: normal; font-weight:bold; color: #2a548d; /*border-bottom: 1px solid; */ }

Eminent Domain Stuff

New London Update (2/24/06)
Coverage of the Rally at New London's City Hall (w/ pics)

Tuesday, August 16, 2005


Letter To The Day

I have two questions about this one. First, what is this guy thinking? Second, what is The Day thinking, publishing this piece of crap?

By way of brief setup, I'm referring to a Letter to the Editor of the The Day (in New London, CT) that, the best I can tell, is arguing for eminent domain takings. I will admit, however, that it is so poorly reasoned and written that I had to read it twice to make sure I hadn't nodded off part way through. Here's a bit:

Items have noted there was a sewage smell so overpowering that a resident has said it might take two years to become accustomed to it. The Day quoted columnist George Will as defining the area as blighted. It seems a blighted area is properly subject to eminent domain or an ordinance that obligates owners to spruce up their property. Other cities have such ordinances — why not New London? If the sewage stench requires a lengthy adjustment period, isn't it possible that visitors to will object to the stench?
Tell you what, buddy. I've been there. It really doesn't stink. I don't know where this is coming from, but I get the feeling that somebody made it up.

Last, paying owners market value is not exactly stealing. Most property buyers try their best to obtain property as far below value as possible; taking property to improve the tax base and, at the same time, improving a blighted area.
Umm...what can I say? Taking property from a person against their wishes is absolutely stealing, and I don't care what is 'given' in return. It's still stealing. And let's remember, the "fair market value" that a property owner will be 'given' is coming out of the pockets of taxpayers.

In my 80-plus years I have heard of property owners knowing a buyer is anxious to acquire property, resisting selling on the grounds of family history or inheritance until the buyer offered an exorbitant offer — all family factors instantly disappeared and the sale was quickly consummated. If that is the case here, it is unconscionable exercise of individual rights and our courts.
Here's the thing: I have every right to sell or not sell my property and I do not need to justify my reason to this octogenarian or anybody else! If the assessed value of an object in my possession is $100,000 and I decide that my emotional attachment to said object is worth no less than $500,000, then yes, I will certainly sell at $500,001...and no less.

This sorry excuse for reasoning displayed by Mr. Arthur is truly scary. It's this sort of misplaced thinking that lends strength to government officials who would ride roughshod over our most fundamental Rights. Be vigilant and engage and defeat the poor, misguided social philosophers of Mr. Arthur's ilk in the arena of ideas.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?