Wow. I need to move to Michigan. Their courts get it. Let me state this dogmatically: Eminent domain is immoral, especially when it's used to take land from one private citizen to give it to another. Eminent domain is theft, pure and simple, and makes no difference if a majority of any council, court, or congress votes for it, or even if it would serve the "greater good" of society to force a landowner to sell his land. It's even worse you consider what you're taking: Not just land, but whatever they've built on the land: A hundred-year-old house, a small business, or even a bird sanctuary. There's not only economic value, but also sentimental value for these landowners.
A google news search turns up a number of battles, such as that of Western Seafood Company vs. the perhaps ironically named Freeport City Council. The city wants to build a marina on the Old Brazos River, but there's a tiny problem: The Western Seafood Company owns 330 feet of land that the city would need for that project.
“That would stop us from being able to take in shrimp from boat owners, as we have for over 50 years,” Gore said.
“We’re fighting for survival to do business.”
...
Councilman Jim Phillips said the marina would be for the public good.
“In other words, what is the best use of the property?” Phillips said. “We have determined that the best possible use would be for a marina.”
And therein lies the the debate: Who's the best person to decide what's "best" for your land? You, or the government?
I think the answer is obvious.
Posted by Blog Jones at August 3, 2004 11:48 PM
| Category: Politics