[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [at-l] Saddleback
At 12:30 PM 8/20/99 -0500, Bucky wrote:
>> Good news.
>If you're a looter.
>"The whole point of government is that if enough people get
>together and act in concert, they can take something without
>paying for it." -- P.J. O'Rourke, paraphrased
>Isn't anyone here disturbed by the use of eminent domain for
>the sake of frigging "viewshed?" Isn't anyone disgusted by
>the naked greed exhibited in many of the letters being sent
>I guess not.
It seems that the battle between the rights of the individual and the
common good will rage forever. If the government had no power of eminent
domain there would be no AT, no list for us to debate the issue, no public
parks or spaces of any kind (except for Baxter State Park).
From all reports the owner of the ski area isn't financially able to
maintain the facilities he has. He was willing to sell the property in
question but at 3-4 times it's appraised value. Neither the NRS or any
other group could pay that. The only justification for his price is his
pie-in-the-sky proposal to expand the ski resort. Sooooo.... Where do we go
from here? If there was no eminent domain we could accept his "gift" which
is nothing more than the right to walk through. We could pay an outrageous
price for the property. We could relocate the trail which was there before
the ski area.
Am I bothered? No. It reminds me of the $600 toilet seats, $1200 hammers,
etc. The logic is that the "government" has deep pockets and can afford it
so why not give as much as I can. The trouble is that the government is us
and it's not the government that's being greedy.
* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List | http://www.backcountry.net *