The P-I on Sunday printed a letter by one Edwina Johnston, responding to my letter (which was responding to their editorial -- this is getting a little meta, isn't it) on eminent domain & community renewal. In this letter, it's recommended to me that I "read the Constitution" (by which she actually means the Bill of Rights -- a pedantic distinction, sure, but she started it). She goes on to make a distinction between eminent domain for "use" and for private benefit, which seems somewhat off-point, both in regard to my letter and the larger debate.
It gets better, though:
The Constitution was written to spell out the rights of citizens and to protect them from the power of the government. A government that elevates the "common good" above "individual rights" is a communist government. In our republic, the individual's right is protected from the tyranny of the majority.The tyranny of a communist majority?! Where, exactly, has this been a threat?
A quick google search reveals that Johnston is involved with reactionary property rights groups and even wrote a guest column in the Seattle Times in support of I-933 and her case was cited by John Carlson in the King County Journal. Her issue: she can't fully exploit the imagined value of the 30 acres she purchased in Preston "to retire on."
So real estate wasn't a secure retirement investment for her? Shocker, that.
A good opponent to draw out, I think.
No comments:
Post a Comment