Eminent domain
Jun 03, 2012 | 1097 views | 4 4 comments | 9 9 recommendations | email to a friend | print

Dear Editor:

I am against the use of eminent domain in the 4th Ward to acquire land for a public park.

A government legally exercises eminent domain when it takes private property for public use, gives the owner of that property just compensation and acts according to a constitutionally supported statutory power.

However, strict compliance with the legal elements of eminent domain does not always justify its use. I feel that ethical justification is also needed when the reason for the taking is not to satisfy an absolute public need.

One may argue that ethically we should implement policy that creates the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people, (Utilitarianism). In this case, taking land away from a small minority of citizens and converting it into something the greater public can enjoy accomplishes this objective. Therefore, use of eminent domain is justified.

One may also argue that ethically we should implement policy in which we treat humanity, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end, (Kantianism). In this case, forcefully taking land away from a minority so that the majority may enjoy it is like treating some of our fellow human beings as means to an end. Therefore, use of eminent domain is not justified.

Both ethical arguments are equally applicable to our eminent domain hypothetical; however, neither is more persuasive. When a public decision calls for ethical justification which is irresolvable then we should take a better route; this means not using eminent domain.

Sincerely,
Franz Paetzold
2nd Ward Resident

Share This Article |
similar stories

Deadlocked on $104M budget Also: Public housing tenants continue protests; and a step back, then f... | 10 days ago by Dean DeChiaro
Reporter staff writer

Comments
(4)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
Redrider765
|
June 07, 2012
It is interesting that a guy who hangs out people who have absolutely no ethics would be so concerned about ethics now. But where was he when a candidate he ran against passed out hundreds of checks on election day to voters who voter for her? Where was he when that same candidate helped buy hundreds more in another ward? Where was he when 1600 Park was needlessly delayed b/c of 1 traffic light not being installed or any of the other destructive things his friends in the Russo/Raia/Mason camp have done? Franz, if you really want people to take you seriously on ethics, how about you stop being so conveniently blind to the unethical behavior of the people you have aligned yourself with. Your letter is nothing but sophistry and I personally find it quite annoying.
Reply
ArtNudge
|
June 05, 2012
Your argument makes no sense at all. What is a better example of an "absolute public need" then a public park?

The owners of this land are not Mom and Pop stores that have been there for a lifetime. They are, for the most part, developers hoping to make a quick buck by snapping up industrial zoned property with the expectation that they will have a "pliable" zoning board or city council (see Mike Russo) that will rubber stamp zoning changes.

If you are going to start talking about ethics why don't you start with your friends first?
Reply
FranzPaetzold
|
June 05, 2012
When the law itself is used against a fellow citizen who has done nothing wrong then something outside of the law should be used to justify the action. Do you not agree with that?

Building a park in the SW is certainly something we need - no argument there. Is it something we absolutely need? To the point where we are willing to take property away from people who have done nothing wrong? Hmmm.
ArtNudge
|
June 06, 2012
Nothing is being taken away. They are being compensated appropriately for the value of the property, and not because they did something wrong or right. The fact that you are characterizing it that way is giving away that your pre-disposed to support developers. The whole point of your editorial was for it to be a dog whistle to developers that you are on their side, and we can hear you loud and clear. At least we know where you stand, instead of the mealy-mouthed positions you usually take.