Hello Andrew,

I commend your effort toward civility.  If I were you, I would expect
attacks from both sides against your comments.  :-)

It seems to me that the original intent of eminent domain for the public
welfare, such as highways and bridges, has been slowly eroded over time.
In another post, someone postulated an example of a factory that needs
to expand, or be moved overseas.

I think there is a short-sightedness in that postulation.  Those are not
the only options available.  Engaging a community in an effort to keep
an industrial presence there for the sake of jobs would be the noble
thing for that industry to do.  It may sound silly, and there are those
that will argue that point with vehemence, but the use of eminent domain
for private enterprise will not ingratiate any company with the
community in which they do business, and any business-person would be a
fool to overlook the value of a good relationship with a community over
short-term capital expenditure savings.  Taking the longer view, and
participating in a process with a community as opposed to "duking it
out" with them in a land grab will buy the company more security in the
long run.  Communities appreciate businesses willing to invest in them.

My view,
Howard

-----Original Message-----
From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Andrew Schriber
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 3:12 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [HP3000-L] OT: Conn. City Leaders OK Riverfront Evictions

I have sat back and watched the conversations on political topics 
revert from educational to accusational.  The opinions bring 
presented are polar opposites.  One side is right and the other is an 
idiot.  Neither side convincing the other and the rest of the list 
just hitting the delete key.  In an effort to bring back some civil 
discourse I would like to present some hypothetical cases.  The 
question I ask you is should eminent domain be used in each case.

1.  Since someone mentioned building stadiums for pro teams.  The 
current owner of a pro team has decided to build a stadium without 
any public money.  He works with the local government and they decide 
on a location.  Should the local government be allowed to use eminent 
domain to acquire the land which would end up being owned by the pro 
teams owner?   What if the owner decides to move his team to another 
city because one property owner would not sell?

2.  A manufacturing company needs to expand its factory to handle new 
equipment.  It has two options one is to expand the 
current  plant.  The other is to build a completely new  factory in a 
foreign country,  and close the current outdated facility.  Building 
the plant in a foreign country makes the most economic 
sense.  However, the company wanting to be a good citizen decides to 
expand locally.  However several of the property owners have set 
unreasonably high prices on their property which kills the deal.  Can 
local government officials use eminent domain to take the needed 
property and ensure that the plant isn't closed?  What if the company 
is the largest employer in the town?

When I first heard about the Kelo vs New London decision I was aghast 
and firmly on the side of the property owner,  However in the 
political arena,  I don't go with my first thought.  After awhile, I 
came up with these two scenarios and some others in which I would 
favor using eminent domain to transfer property from one private 
property owner to another.   So, I am now in the camp for eminent 
domain camp as long as it can only be wielded by elected 
officials.  This was missing in the Kelo case where a regional 
development commission made up of appointed members made the 
decision.  Hopefully elected officials will exercise some restraint 
when using this power,  since they have to answer to their voters.

These grey areas is what I find lacking in all the political issues 
being mentioned on the list these days.   All I see mentioned are the 
talking points of the liberal or conservative press. Depending on 
your side, you can quote someone who backs your view.  I now what the 
party lines are, I would like to know what your thoughts are.

A couple of years ago I had an interesting off list email exchange 
with a fellow list member about Presidents Bush's faith based 
initiative.  This exchange was educational and 
enlightening.  However, I am hesitant to express any opinions on the 
list because those opinions would be attacked from both sides

Andrew Schriber
  

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *