Just to clarify…

Apparently my post regarding eminent domain was a controversial one, and it seems that some people may have missed the overriding point I was trying to make.

I am not advocating the use of eminent domain all willy nilly…I’m actually not suggest any kind of measures to occur with eminent domain, but rather I am simply complaining about the current system we have in place. Sure we need to protect individual freedoms (imo, that only goes so far though). In some instances government goes to far (see the Patriot Act), and I think that is what many seem to think I’m advocating. It is not, let me explain…

I am making an observation that in many of the high profile eminent domain cases, it is not the small guy or the innocent property owner fighting the battle. It’s quite the contrary…as I pointed out, many of the people involved in these legal battles are absent landlords, LLC’s, corporate entities and the like. I don’t want to rob Peter to pay Paul…I just want to pay Paul for his efforts and enthusiasm in wanting to invest in the inner-city. Is that sooo wrong?

You may still disagree with me and that’s fine…I’m just looking at the situation and thinking, “Maybe we’ve gone a little too far with these rulings.” You know the knee-jerk anti-communist type reactions we’ve seen. I just ask that you cool your jets and look at the next eminent domain case that pops up…you tell me who is benefiting: the neighborhood, municipality, investor or some random LLC who has been stockpiling junk properties for years just waiting for this kind of thing to happen?