RE: [at-l] Saddleback

["McBride, James" <mcbride_j@lxe.com>]

	Bucky writes...

> 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
> gored. 
> 
	Bucky,

A critical point to consider is that the landowner has the land up for sale
already. The fact is that he wants to sell it and this makes a big
difference in the situation. The issue is not someones land being taken. The
issue is the price that will be paid for it.

There is no issue here of land being taken away by force. The owner wants to
sell. The real issue at hand is the ability of a landowner to use his land
as he sees fit without interference from the government. The owner wants
approval to expand the development so he can sell it at a higher price.
Obviously the property is worth much less if it has restrictions on its
usage. If you want to argue for the landowners right you should argue this
point and not eminent domain, because like I said previously, its not the
issue here.

Jim McBride

* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List |  http://www.backcountry.net  *

==============================================================================