IMPROPER ACTIONS.
We are hearing more more about abuses of legal rights in recent years?
Defintions seem to change more often so that many of those actions of few years ago which were considered to be questionable are now being seen as commendbale. What things which used t be thought of as being on the "shady" side are now in the limelight as the greatest ecnomic advancements of the century.
The right of Eminent Domain seems to be one of the greatest economic concerns of our time, and the "abuse" of this regulation appears more and more in the news. The pattern of alleged abuse is being found in many sections of the nation by those persons who take time to be concerned about the steady erosion of individual rights. It is a re-occuring topic for discussion of a number of radio talks shows.
So often, the critical point of disagreement in each of these cases seems to be an exact awareness of just what the original intended. The term "in the public interest" is the apex of much of the discussion.. It will be found in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States In no way does it forbid the "government" from takng possession of property. It says only that, when it becomes necessary for government to take over property the only requirementis is that the owner be "duly compensated for his loss." There is no restriction whatever on when and how government is to decide if any change is in "the public interest ".
If you are concerned about this suble bit of evasion in an instance of which you have recently become aware, it may be wise to redefine what you mean exactly by those whom you term to be "government" in the transaction. Usually this strange responsiabilty finds its way downward to a level of officials name, perhaps, City Counilmen and women or the Board of Alderman men or women, who are elected officials charged with doing what is best for your commuiity in a regulatory sense. If they see a chance to increase the income from a piece of real property simply by changing its status from private ownership to public, they ought to do so in allegience to the pledge they gave you when you helped elect them to office. If they know how to accomplish a gain for the community as a whole by changing a piece of property from a status of private to public ownership, they are doing their job - the work you elected them to do.
While it may be true, that you could have elected in individuals to the job who had a stronger awaeness of human undertanding.love, comapssion and other such values. They are not, generally, high among the qualities we look for in electable persons. So, where does the true "blame" for any so called "wrong": done to individuals during such cases?
Some falls mighty close to home.
A.L.M. December 22, 2003 [c583wds]
.
