[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re: [at-l] Eminent domain
- Subject: Re: Re: [at-l] Eminent domain
- From: kahley7 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 14:46:36 -0700
At 01:33 PM 8/22/99 -0400, you wrote:
>HERITAGE! What about the heritage of the Native Americans whose land it was
>before we stole it from them.
Sorry, my guilt-ometer only goes back to include acts that occurred while I
was actually alive. Well maybe if you boost the gain, I may have twinges
about the past century. Beyond that.....nope....no culpability.
>the heritage of out grandchildren we should be concerned about. :
Maybe the heritage of our grandchildren is the concern of both sides here.
>"A world without wilderness is a cage."
And what is a world without freedom?
Let's not forget that the conflict here is not cause by someone saying
"No you can not walk across my land"
It's caused by someone saying, "To insure we see only what we wish to
see as we walk across your land, we want to control it. But not enough
to buy it at the price you set......so we'll just take it or rather set our own
price and compel you to sell . Doesn't that make you at all uneasy?
I know I told the story here before about when my husband's family was
accommodate the development of a rail to trail through their land. Their chief
concerns were the risk of fires and the idea that if the state was allowed
to use a corridor, the next thing they would want was to take the corridor.
At the time I didn't think that was a real risk. Now, I see that it is.
So selfishly, as one who wants to see more trails built, I can't help but
wonder how this precedent would effect the decisions of future landowners
when someone asks them "may we walk across your land?"
Why would they ever give us an inch if we prove we are all too willing to
take a yard?
* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List | http://www.backcountry.net *