Property rights vs. economic development
Re: “Power of eminent domain expanded by court’s ruling,” June 24 news story.
With the recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, perhaps it’s time to put a stop to this eminent domain nonsense by amending the Colorado Constitution as follows: “Ownership of property acquired through eminent domain proceedings shall remain with the acquiring district, or any other unit of government whose governing body is elected by the people, for not less than 20 years. The appraised value of property shall be a firm offer to purchase the property by the district issuing the appraisal and must, at the request of the property owner, be completed within 90 days.”
This will do two things: 1) effectively prevent governments from handing over property to developers; and 2) force them to appraise property below fair market values.
David Aitken, Denver
…
So, with the recent decision on private property takings and the Fifth Amendment and a different issue two years ago, the Supreme Court says this to the people: The government has no business in your bedroom, but if it wants to drive a bulldozer through it, that’s just peachy!
T.J. Olson, Boulder
…
Re: “Court gives land robbery a thumbs up,” June 27 David Harsanyi column.
David Harsanyi writes: “Yet, by a 5-4 decision, the liberal wing of the Supreme Court ruled that government can essentially seize a person’s property – and liberty – and hand it over to an entity that happens to generate more tax revenue.”
What “liberal wing” is he referring to here? Yes, Justices Breyer and Ginsburg, the two lone Democrats on the court, sided with the majority, but the rest of the five were made up of Souter (Republican, appointed by Bush I), Kennedy (Republican, appointed by Reagan) and Stevens (Republican, appointed by Ford). This is the liberal wing?
But all that aside, I don’t know of any one of my “liberal” friends who agreed with this decision. Obviously, Harsanyi and four members of the court do not care for it, either. It seems to me we have a perfect opportunity for cooperation here. Instead of spending enormous amounts of time and money protecting the flag with an anti-burning amendment – an effort that will protect no one’s property or livelihood – why don’t we spend time getting both sides of the aisle to pass a constitutional amendment that clarifies the meaning of the Fifth Amendment?
Don Herman, Denver
…
Re: “Power of eminent domain expanded by court’s ruling; Homes can be seized for private development projects,” June 24 news story.
Your report about the Supreme Court’s ruling on eminent domain implied that plans for development in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood in New London, Conn., were intended to benefit Pfizer and that eminent domain would be used for development of Pfizer properties, but this is untrue.
Pfizer has no material interest in the proposed redevelopment. This has been confirmed by Connecticut’s highest court, and Pfizer’s involvement was not part of the U.S. Supreme Court hearing.
The facts about Pfizer’s presence in New London are much simpler.
Pfizer has delivered every promise made to the city and state. In 2001, we completed construction of a $300 million research and development center on a derelict brownfield that had been vacant for years. Pfizer brought 1,500 jobs to New London, representing an annual payroll of more than $10 million. Pfizer’s property tax bill exceeds $1.5 million annually, making it the largest single taxpayer in the city.
Eminent domain played no part in the company’s purchase of land in New London.
Furthermore, Pfizer is not involved in development of the Fort Trumbull neighborhood.
William C. Longa, Senior Corporate Counsel, Pfizer Inc., New London, Conn.
Burning issue: Should we protect Old Glory?
Re: “Salazar will back bill to ban flag burning,” June 24 news brief.
I find it absurd that so many civil liberties advocates find it necessary to defend flag burning. Now, I’m not one of those rabid ultra-patriots who have come into their own in recent times, flying mini-flags by the dozen from their massive SUVs and ending every sentence with “God Bless America.” Still, burning the flag seems to be the last thing an American would want to do. Americans who burn the flag, for whatever reason, are essentially trivializing the freedoms they enjoy daily – indeed, the very freedoms that have thus far allowed them to burn the flag with impunity. They are not symbolizing their dissent from the opinions of their political opponents, they are denouncing the United States as a whole. By burning the symbol of our nation’s heritage and unity, they defy everything the flag symbolizes.
Freedom of expression can and must be kept in accordance with the rights of those around you. One’s right to express himself should not fly in the face of courtesy and the rights of others, because the rights of one do not eclipse the rights of another. As members of a diverse and harmonious society, we should keep a sense of consideration and fairness.
Adrian Robles, Lakewood
…
It is disappointing to hear that Sen. Ken Salazar supports an amendment to make it a crime to burn the flag.
Some hold the flag up as a symbol of freedom and honor. However, would you punish an American Indian for showing his disrespect for the flag of the country that killed his family and took his home? Would you imprison a black woman for not honoring the thing that symbolizes the forces that enslaved her and sold her children? If the flag represents our country, we must recognize that for some it is a symbol of repression, arrogance and horrific cruelty.
The most important thing we can do to preserve the freedom that we share is to fiercely guard the right to protest. We must not protect ourselves from being shown the truth about ourselves. It is too easy to fall in line with the super-patriots who proclaim, “My country, right or wrong.” History and recent times show that sometimes “my country” is wrong and we must remain open to all types of vigorous protestation.
In taking this position, Salazar aligns himself with the self-righteous forces of negativity and governmental repression.
Kenneth Dahle, Denver
…
We voted for Sen. Ken Salazar, as we felt he was a candidate who would protect our Constitution from amendments that would only weaken its structure. To read that he is going to co-sponsor an amendment to ban flag burning is a huge disappointment. We agree with your editorial of June 24 (“Short-sighted flag waving”). We hope Salazar not only reads it, but gives some thought to his constituents.
Bud and Shirley Olde, Lakewood
Cost of the war on drugs
Re: “Prison costs are running out of control; Start with cutting drug sentences,” June 26 Perspective article.
Major kudos to Mike Krause for his outstanding column. The monetary costs are not the only costs of our failed war on drugs. The war on drugs has cost us the right to rightfully call the United States a truly free country. If adult citizens cannot decide for themselves what to put into their own bodies without the threat of getting arrested and jailed for doing so, we are not a free country.
The words “liberty” or “justice” engraved upon our currency or national monuments do not make this a country free.
Kirk Muse, Mesa, Ariz.
Greeley’s great Latino divide
Re: “Greeley’s great divide; Ethnic chasm keeps Latino population from wielding political clout,” June 26 news story.
Our immigration officials have done a very poor job in the enforcement and apprehension of the millions of illegals in this country, or there would be no “great divide.” Americans are having to spend billions of dollars to pay for social services for these illegals, and now you talk about politics.
In my opinion, all illegals should be collected and sent home, even if it costs a few more billion dollars. That would be cheaper than continuing to pay for social services for these millions of illegals, and a whole lot more honest way of handling this problem than doing like local politicians and looking the other way.
I cannot teach my children to obey our laws when our police and politicians openly let illegals flaunt these laws in our face. Isn’t it illegal to use false documents? Isn’t it illegal to fail to report income or use a fake Social Security number to gain employment?
This area is a haven for illegals: No I.D., no problem; plenty of greedy employers who face no penalties when they hire these people; and an endless supply of cheap foreign labor.
Johnnie G. Wren, Kiowa
Appreciation for Amtrak
Re: “Rail service threatened again,” June 27 editorial.
Your editorial made me recall that I was stranded in New York City when the big March 2003 blizzard hit Denver and closed DIA. All flights to Denver were cancelled for days, but Amtrak came to my rescue. The train journey was scenic, pleasant and punctual. I arrived at my workplace in Lakewood just as DIA was opening (for departures only), and barely 90 minutes later than my snowbound compatriots who had never left town!
More recently, my brother was stranded in the Salt Lake City airport for more than 12 hours with a standby airline ticket and no available seats on any flight. Once again, Amtrak was there when we needed it.
I suspect interstate travel options after Sept. 11, 2001, would have been similar.
The sign over Denver’s Union Station reads “Travel by Train.” I can heartily endorse intercity passenger rail as a viable transportation option.
Robert Matschulat, Lakewood
In defense of PETA
Re: “PETA: Better dead than fed,” June 26 Debra J. Saunders column.
As a contributor to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and other animal safety organizations, I was disappointed to read that PETA employees might be deliberately harming animals instead. However, Debra J. Saunders loses some credibility when she uses PETA president Ingrid Newkirk’s alleged comments to generally vilify PETA as an organization.
Saunders refers to the 1970s shelter job that Newkirk held as an example of her disdain for animal life. I interpreted her description as a woman working in a shelter that obviously practiced euthanasia, as most do, and taking on a terrible task, which was inevitably going to be done anyway, rather than waiting for other, less-caring employees to do it.
I suspect that Newkirk’s alleged comments about humans and childbirth were taken out of context; however, she is an individual, not the organization, and when one deals with so many abused, neglected animals as a result of human stupidity, it is sometimes hard to feel positive about our species.
If PETA is truly killing animals as a convenience, then I agree that the organization is way off track and should be exposed.
However, PETA has done much to publicize what I consider deplorable activities related to animals and a general philosophy I agree with – that animals have value and should be treated with respect.
Diane Silver, Arvada
Have we gone too far with immigration policies?
Re: “Immigration bill promising; Bipartisan effort addresses security, economy, family,” June 26 Perspective article.
The immigration bill in question that was recently introduced in Congress may be bipartisan, meaning that it has support in both of the major political parties, but it is absolutely contrary to the wishes of a majority of the American public. We the people do not want amnesty for the millions of Mexican illegal aliens.
The truth is that too many immigrants from Mexico are bringing their Third World values, or lack thereof, to our nation and artificially lowering the minimum wage for the poorest of Americans, thereby making the lives of our own poor people even more difficult.
John Gargano, Denver
…
Anne Allott’s article was a perfect illustration of what is wrong with how apologists for illegal immigration think, and how their thinking is dangerous for the United States.
The importation of cheap and docile foreign labor was how the likes of Andrew Carnegie and John Rockefeller depressed wages and crushed workers’ movements for decades. It was a brutal, exploitative policy, but at least those men had the honesty to publicly argue for it, willingly accepting and justifying the implications of the vicious social Darwinism they brought into being. Modern advocates such as Allott shy away from these same repercussions and hope that no one will notice. But we do. And the dishonesty is beginning to wear thin. Hopefully, it will soon wear out – because then we can have a conversation about illegal immigration based on a truthful analysis of its real effects on our country.
Morgan Liddick, Silverthorne
…
Anne Allott applauds taking away criminality for employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. I do not see how that would differ from the current situation, where law enforcement looks the other way and permits employers, such as the mayor of Denver before he was elected, to put illegals on their payrolls.
We do not need more legislation to solve the problems created by those who have wantonly crossed our borders without permission. We need to hold responsible those who, for their own financial benefit, treat a whole subclass of people as chattel. We cannot afford to continue to permit law enforcement to wink at serious infractions of our laws so that businesses can have cheap, underpaid, subservient employees.
Mary Anne Little, Denver
Outrage over sheep-castration methods
Almost 15 years ago, when I met my future husband, he told me how his father, a sheep rancher in Montrose, would castrate his lambs – with his teeth. I almost didn’t believe it, but then a year later I was at the family farm and witnessed it myself.
Letter-writer Kathy Hixson (June 26 Open Forum), referencing your excellent article on South American sheepherders working in the United States (“Tending our flocks,” June 19 news story), was outraged at this method. I can assure Hixson that this method of castration is not a “native custom” singular only to immigrant laborers. My father-in-law is a second-generation Hispanic, and even many Anglo sheep owners castrate their lambs in this manner. Furthermore, this method is quick and efficient.
Vicki Felmlee, Grand Junction
…
I fear that letter-writer Kathy Hixson is laboring under a misconception about our country’s humane laws. Yes, this is the United States, and we do have laws that protect animals from acts that have been defined as “cruel.” However, ranchers in the U.S. are not required by law to employ anesthesia when castrating their livestock. I am not defending this practice, just attempting to educate a public that might share Hixson’s misunderstanding.
Nancy A. Sheffield, Glenwood Springs
…
As a vocational agriculture student teacher at Colorado State University in 1962, I gave a lamb castration demonstration to a class of high school students, using my teeth. The class then proceeded to use their teeth to castrate about 40 lambs. I didn’t notice any discomfort on the part of the lambs, as the testicles aren’t attached to anything. There was no uncontrolled bleeding or shock as the lambs went on about being a lamb.
Ross Moon, Colorado Springs
TO THE POINT: Short takes from readers
By removing his foot from his mouth recently, Karl Rove reminded us why his foot was there in the first place.
Mark Kness, Boulder
Five U.S. Supreme Court justices have pulled an anti-Robin Hood fast one with the recent eminent domain ruling. They advocate the idea of the government taking homes from the “poorer” to give to the “richer” so the richer can be more rich.
Robert E. Forman, Lakewood
Given the recent spate of Supreme Court decisions (and, actually, decisions going back quite a few years now), does anyone else get the impression they are just making stuff up as they go along?
Jana Paterson, Lone Tree
One of the biggest problems in Iraq right now is agreeing on a constitution. They should just do what Washington does – have a constitution but just don’t use it.
Richard Cantillon, Centennial
Regarding the secretary of agriculture’s assurance that the U.S. mad cow case is no threat to public health: There are lies, damn lies and the pronouncements of high-level bureaucrats trying to spin away obvious facts.
Robert Park, Golden
The U.S. Senate recently apologized for failing to outlaw lynching in the 20th century. I wonder if the Senate, some time in the future, will apologize for the abusive treatment it is presently imposing on gay people.
Virginia L. Wielgot, Aurora
To have your comments printed in To the Point, please send letters of no more than 40 words to openforum@denverpost.com (no attachments, please) or 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202. Writers are limited to one letter per month.
TO REACH OPINION EDITORS
Phone: 303-820-1331
Fax: 303-820-1502
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com (only straight text, not attachments)
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202 or PO Box 1709, Denver, 80201
Letters guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 200 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address and day and evening phone numbers. Letters may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.
