2008 Woodie Awards
Our reader's voices
Issue date: 11/9/07 Section: Voices
- Page 1 of 1
Broomfield development
Take a step back in time to June 23, 2005. "Why does that date sound familiar," you ask, "and why does it give me a bad feeling?" That date was when governmental taking of property from one individual to give to another for the furtherance of a governments economic development plan was found constitutional by Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer in the case of Kelo v. City of New London. Many people were outraged by this, and rightfully so. This lead to the birth of various eminent domain limiting ballot proposals and legislation through out the country - a prime example was Proposal 4 which passed with quite a significant margin in November of 2006.
Let's fast forward to the present and take a look at what happened on Tuesday. Mount Pleasant residents voted, by almost a ratio of 2 to 1, 'No' to the acceptance of Ordinance No. 928. This decision means that the PRD agreement set back in 2000 comes back into effect. I found the following comment interesting: "It is obvious that the editorial staff has done its homework and is willing to put the best interests of the Mount Pleasant community ahead of special interests." This was supposedly made by newly elected city commission member Kathy Ling (who ran unopposed) in response to the online edition of Central Michigan Life's "Vote No" editorial published Monday.
Special interests you say? I would tend to believe that United Investments is also a part of the Mount Pleasant community. Where's that comedic record scratch sound when you need it most? Oh, I know, it's not around because the situation isn't funny. It's perverted enough that there are zoning boards to decide what people can or can not do with their own property in the first place. However, it's even more disgusting that people believe they can vote to limit how a property owner may use their property when the zoning board has loosened it's own unjust restrictions. If there are any special interests in this case, it's those who petitioned and voted no on the ballot proposal.
So those of you who were outraged by the Kelo decision, raise your hand. For those with your hand raised, if you voted no or push the 'vote no' agenda, lower your hand half way and slap yourself - you're a hypocrite. Although property in this case wasn't expropriated, the effect is the same: unjust loss of an owner's control of their property via extortion.
Jason Gillman
Traverse City junior
Take a step back in time to June 23, 2005. "Why does that date sound familiar," you ask, "and why does it give me a bad feeling?" That date was when governmental taking of property from one individual to give to another for the furtherance of a governments economic development plan was found constitutional by Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer in the case of Kelo v. City of New London. Many people were outraged by this, and rightfully so. This lead to the birth of various eminent domain limiting ballot proposals and legislation through out the country - a prime example was Proposal 4 which passed with quite a significant margin in November of 2006.
Let's fast forward to the present and take a look at what happened on Tuesday. Mount Pleasant residents voted, by almost a ratio of 2 to 1, 'No' to the acceptance of Ordinance No. 928. This decision means that the PRD agreement set back in 2000 comes back into effect. I found the following comment interesting: "It is obvious that the editorial staff has done its homework and is willing to put the best interests of the Mount Pleasant community ahead of special interests." This was supposedly made by newly elected city commission member Kathy Ling (who ran unopposed) in response to the online edition of Central Michigan Life's "Vote No" editorial published Monday.
Special interests you say? I would tend to believe that United Investments is also a part of the Mount Pleasant community. Where's that comedic record scratch sound when you need it most? Oh, I know, it's not around because the situation isn't funny. It's perverted enough that there are zoning boards to decide what people can or can not do with their own property in the first place. However, it's even more disgusting that people believe they can vote to limit how a property owner may use their property when the zoning board has loosened it's own unjust restrictions. If there are any special interests in this case, it's those who petitioned and voted no on the ballot proposal.
So those of you who were outraged by the Kelo decision, raise your hand. For those with your hand raised, if you voted no or push the 'vote no' agenda, lower your hand half way and slap yourself - you're a hypocrite. Although property in this case wasn't expropriated, the effect is the same: unjust loss of an owner's control of their property via extortion.
Jason Gillman
Traverse City junior
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
Kyle Nothstine
posted 11/09/07 @ 10:18 AM EST
Well, that all sounds very good, but you seem to be forgetting something. When the property was purchased, it already was restricted. The purchaser knew that and purchased anyway, then wanted to change it. (Continued…)
Kyle Nothstine
posted 11/09/07 @ 12:15 PM EST
Well, that all sounds very good, but you seem to be forgetting something. When the property was purchased, it already was restricted. The purchaser knew that and purchased anyway, then wanted to change it, akin to purchasing property near an airport, then complaining of noise generated at that airport. (Continued…)
Post a Comment