1 year, 5 months ago
Pocatello, Idaho is currently using eminent domain laws to take local residents property and extend a greenbelt project. Your thoughts?
I'm sure the particular residents whos land is being taken are being paid, but what about those who do not want to sell?
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$1 Answer
First, the situation in Pocatello is not as you describe, so I suspect your source was some straw man tale from a conservative site or host. The situation there is about easements for a nature trail:
Portneuf Greenway Foundation use eminent domain to obtain levees necessary to finish the trail.
"Former Greenway Foundation president Ed Bala said, an often overlooked issue is that the levees have been decertified for flood control.
Since all taxpayers will have to pay for recertification, he thinks they should all get something in return, and the greenway could be just that."
"A southeast Idaho city's potential use of eminent domain to acquire easements to complete a languishing, 23-mile trail system is being opposed by a major farm group.
Officials with the Bannock County Farm Bureau tell the Idaho State Journal they will challenge any attempt to use eminent domain to complete the trails in and around Pocatello proposed by the Portneuf Greenway Foundation.
The Bannock County Farm Bureau is part of the Idaho Farm Bureau Federation, which opposes the use of eminent domain for recreational purposes.
But Greenway officials say there is much more support than opposition for the Greenway that they say will improve the city and benefit economic development."
So, this is a legitimate public project that a local farmers' group objects to on principle; but, it does not involve taking homes or significant amounts of land.
I strongly support Rails to Trails and all similar efforts to guarantee the public access to the countryside. Allowing all land to be "owned" and "posted" as "no trespassing" is a massive injustice. It's a good thing for people to be allowed to own homes and farms; but, the unrestricted ownership of land is not. What is the basis for ownership of land? You bought it from someone, who bought it from someone, etc back to someone who outright stole it. It is unsound. People are only stewards of the land, and they should behave accordingly. The farm association should not be objecting to this project, there are plenty of more reasonable things the farmers should object to such as loss of farmland to housing and other developments.
Portneuf Greenway Foundation use eminent domain to obtain levees necessary to finish the trail.
"Former Greenway Foundation president Ed Bala said, an often overlooked issue is that the levees have been decertified for flood control.
Since all taxpayers will have to pay for recertification, he thinks they should all get something in return, and the greenway could be just that."
"A southeast Idaho city's potential use of eminent domain to acquire easements to complete a languishing, 23-mile trail system is being opposed by a major farm group.
Officials with the Bannock County Farm Bureau tell the Idaho State Journal they will challenge any attempt to use eminent domain to complete the trails in and around Pocatello proposed by the Portneuf Greenway Foundation.
The Bannock County Farm Bureau is part of the Idaho Farm Bureau Federation, which opposes the use of eminent domain for recreational purposes.
But Greenway officials say there is much more support than opposition for the Greenway that they say will improve the city and benefit economic development."
So, this is a legitimate public project that a local farmers' group objects to on principle; but, it does not involve taking homes or significant amounts of land.
I strongly support Rails to Trails and all similar efforts to guarantee the public access to the countryside. Allowing all land to be "owned" and "posted" as "no trespassing" is a massive injustice. It's a good thing for people to be allowed to own homes and farms; but, the unrestricted ownership of land is not. What is the basis for ownership of land? You bought it from someone, who bought it from someone, etc back to someone who outright stole it. It is unsound. People are only stewards of the land, and they should behave accordingly. The farm association should not be objecting to this project, there are plenty of more reasonable things the farmers should object to such as loss of farmland to housing and other developments.
images:
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Very helpful....i do agree.
I read the Idaho State Journal almost everyday.....it is interesting who's point of view gets published the most.