[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [at-l] Saddleback
- Subject: Re: [at-l] Saddleback
- From: "Bucky" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 09:44:03 -0500
Jim McBride wrote:
> Its not really fair to use the Saddleback situation as a case over which to
> argue the merits of eminent domain. Its not really the issue here at all.
Bushlips. The means are *always* an issue.
> It would appear that the owner is trying to sell the land at a high price
> based on the idea that a purchaser could expand the resort. If it were so
> lucrative he would have already done so. It seems that its a ploy to jack up
> the price.
So you're basically saying that the use of eminent domain isn't an
issue if the landowner refuses to sell his land at the price offered
by the government.
Tell me then: under that criterion, when does eminent domain ever
become an issue?
> And for the record, I am normally opposed to eminent domain. But I really
> don't think its the issue here.
Yes, because you lust for the mountain, and it isn't your ox being
email@example.com; Northern Franklin County, Maine $
The Constitution is the white man's ghost shirt. }>:-/> --->
* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List | http://www.backcountry.net *