The 5th Amendment to the Constitution says “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” It DOESN’T say “It’s great when the government takes people’s property and gives them just compensation” or “The Government should take as much of people’s property as they want and then give them just compensation.” It says what it means and it tells the Government what it cannot do.

It is interpretation that has taken it to mean “run right up to the limits of what the 5th Amendment might possibly allow.” And I think that’s a mistake.

To say questioning interpretation of a Constitutional provision is “treasonous” is over the top and bizarre. I guess the Supreme Court is a body of “treason.” If it is not “ours” to determine what the limits should be, then who should be doing that? Do you really think it is not upon the citizenry to determine what the limits of using “governmental powers” should be? If we don’t debate it, then how are we represented by our elected officials anyway?

And I’m not “demonizing a government power.” I am questioning its (over) use by people.

I follow your straw man argument just fine, thank you very much. The difference is the Military and Judicial System are proactively proscribed in the Constitution.

I will refrain from any further commentary regarding the “spin” contained in this website or in your postings. Never a more blatant “tool” have I seen.

I’ll merely say this: Just because I differ with your view and your ideological rantings doesn’t mean that I am arguing the Township “spin.” I personally think the idea is foolish and that the community will ultimately reject the community center because it will cost too much. What I don’t agree with is that the use of eminent domain is evil and that government has “gone crazy” when it uses that power. As I said before, its in the Constitution, pal. Get used to it. If our elected representatives abuse that power, we have elections to change that. Demonizing a legitimate government power is not the way to bring about that change. Debate the merits of the decision, not the fact that the power to make the decision exists.

Would you like to follow your theory to its logical end? Perhaps debate the wisdom of having an army or navy at all instead of the merits of taking particular military actions. Maybe have a discourse about eliminating police, judges and juries instead of complaining about the results of a particular criminal case. Do you follow my point?

Ours is not to debate the merits of the Constitution – it exists and we must live within its terms. Your “yellow” journalisitic style is too coy and cramped by far. Debate the use of the powers of government … that is our right. Demonizing the Constitution is nothing short of treasonous.

In my world, people should pay the taxes they owe, Republican or Democrat. The way to lower taxes is to pass laws that lower taxes, not to find ways around the taxes that exist.

I’m wide awake. I was awake enough to see that township meeting on television packed with residents who do not want a community center. What’s the “public purposes” of something the public doesn’t want and lawn watering?

It sounds like you have more of a problem with the Courier’s coverage of the story than my reaction to the Courier’s coverage. I had no idea about these two back-to-back Eminent Domain issues in Lower Southampton until I read about them there.

That said, in the interest of fairness, I have put a paragraph into the original story that reflects the alternate view of the situation. If there’s a question about the order of things, I’m more than happy to have it be reflected in the information.

I think you should do a little research on eminent domain. I did – the purpose is to allow government to achieve goals that are public purposes – like building community facilities. Is a road or sewer pipe any more a community facility than a community center? Wake up. The US Constitution specifically authorizes eminent domain, so long as the property owner is paid just compensation. You do read the Constitution, don’t you?

In any case, the Township didn’t exercise eminent domain against either property owner. They paid, or are paying, for the property and the owners have, or are, agreeing to the price. Seems like the only person who has a problem with any of this is you … and we KNOW you don’t have any ulterior motives. Right?

Here’s the purpose of this site: I comment on news articles I find interesting, and then readers comment on my comments and add their own. I thank you for your participation.

The BCCT presented this information about Eminent Domain, and quotes from township representatives backed up it being used. I found it odd that LS had two instances of this being used in just a couple months, and did a quick search about other local towns using it for non-essential things like lawn watering and community centers, and found none. That makes it an anomaly, and therefore interesting to me. Unless you’re an apartment dweller, just the words Eminent Domain should be chilling to you.

1 Did the Township or did the Township not pass a resolution stating they were willing to take the Hagopian property by Eminent Domain at a previous meeting?

2 Did the Township or did the Township not specifically tell Mrs. Madrigale that the Township did not threaten to take the property by condemnation at the most recent meeting, despite #1?

3 Is the Township or is the Township not getting Mr. Hagopian’s property for below market value?

4 Is the intent of Eminent Domain to get land for things you want to do, like water a lawn or build a community center, or for things you need to do, like provide electricity or sewer service? A lot of rights are swiped these days in the name of “the kids.”

5 Contrary to what you’ve stated, at the most recent meeting two supervisors (couldn’t see their names on TV – they were on the right) stated that they only voted to buy the Hagopian land because they were told it was for storm water mgmt, while the remainder of the panel that night loudly admonished them for stating this saying that they were fully informed it was being purchased as a possible site for the Community Center no one but you seems to want.

“Increasing his haul?” It’s HIS land! Some of us believe in individual property rights and are offended by Eminent Domain being used for non-essential services. In Mr. Hackert’s case, regardless of whether he had a use for the property (which is really no one’s business but his), it does not appear he wanted to give up that piece of land. 5,000 square feet is a pretty large “EASEMENT,” don’t you think.

In the past couple weeks alone, Lower Southampton has had 2 of their firefighters arrested for arson and a guy getting beaten silly in his own driveway. Maybe it’s time to prioritize a little.