|
|
||
Date published: 1/19/2006
In a recent letter to the editor, Stephen Despres indicated that "his" property rights have been taken away ["Property rights slip away as 'good causes' intrude," Jan. 17]. Further, he says, "90 percent of what would have been our property rights" in the 1700s were taken away from him. Even without a mathematical critique of his stated facts--and as ridiculous as it may seem that anyone would argue that the rights that were enjoyed in the 1700s somehow might translate to the year 2006--one might still feel sorry for this man as he whiles away his time on his 16 acres in King George, prevented from "doing anything" with it by (what he considers) unfair restrictions on his property rights. Clearly, however, the thing he is unable to do is develop his tract. Development is a theme in Mr. Despres' letter. He cites Kelo v. New London. Presumably, he cites it for the proposition that the government may now take whatever land it wants, whenever it wants it, regardless of the reason. This is an improper reading of that important decision. I, too, would cite Kelo, however, I would do so for the proposition that a governmental entity is forbidden from taking land for the purpose of conferring a private benefit on a particular private party. In fact, Kelo strengthened the argument that private land may not be condemned without just cause relative to a legitimate public purpose. Still, as the Kelo court said, Saving Crow's Nest serves the legitimate public purpose of environmental preservation. I know of no better public purpose. Jay B. Jackson Stafford
1. Be respectful. No personal attacks.
|
|
|||||||||||||
