[at-l] put a cork in it

[jbullar1 at twcny.rr.com (Jim Bullard)]

At 11:23 PM 9/6/2003 -0400, J Bryan Kramer wrote:
>If you are talking about the Saddleback link you'll notice I captioned it
>with, IIRC, "and other general chest beating" which should indicate that I
>don't accept anything at face value that these groups are posting. They all
>have axes to grind on both sides of these issues.

As a former state employee I have been involved in more than a few 
situations where individuals felt aggrieved by the outcome of actions by my 
agency. They didn't involve land rights but I see no difference in the 
nature of those situations from those I dealt with first hand and where the 
aggrieved party felt their 'rights' were abused. In every case the 
individual had recourse to some sort of appeal but either chose not to 
pursue it or lost because the law was not on their side. Despite that, all 
had their own mono-dimensional version of the abuse they were subjected to 
which invariably ignored key facts and portrayed them as "VICTIM" of the 
"gub'mint" as Jim O likes to call it. These tales bureaucratic bullying 
were then told and retold, often even picked up by the local press who 
never bothered to check facts to insure balanced reporting. Therefor, based 
on personal experience, I share Bryan's observation that there is probably 
considerable axe grinding involved with many if not all the tales presented.


>The point I was making that there are a large number of these links, I don't
>have the time or inclination to track down the facts of each of the
>complaints. But the wide geographical range and sheer number must indicate
>that there is a big problem.

What I would like to know is, what exactly is the nature of this problem? 
Jim Owen has hinted that he believes that no land should ever be taken by 
eminent domain. (BTW - Does any one besides me get a snicker over the use 
of ED as an abbreviation for eminent domain?) I asked a series of questions 
aimed at reaching a solution to this alleged wrong. All were ignored. It 
seems the parties would rather batter one another with sarcastic comments 
about one another's relative intelligence than to address the core issue of 
the propriety of protecting the trail though use of eminent domain.

For my part I find nothing in the US Constitution that places property 
rights above the power of the government to take property for public good. 
In fact, I can find no historic precedent for the supremacy of individual 
property rights over government anywhere, anytime. Apparently the courts do 
not either. So, assuming that our courts are correct I will replace my 
unanswered questions which involved, how do we rectify the wrong of having 
used eminent domain, with the questions of the relationship to eminent 
domain and the AT.

Since eminent domain is okay for building highways, dams, etc., why is it 
not legitimate for trail corridors? Is it a question of quantity of people 
benefited? If not, what is the measure? What constitutes 'enough' public 
good to make the use of eminent domain an acceptable method of insuring the 
AT's integrity?

Saunterer (who believes the path to correct answers is to first ask the 
correct questions)