|
Hey, 'Stafford Citizens,' hands off my land
Date published: 6/8/2007
Hey, 'Stafford Citizens,' hands off my land
Contrary to the assertion of the op-ed by Nan Rollison of the Stafford Citizens for a Sustainable Future that "all citizens win" is the fact that the only ones "winning" anything are those who continue to think they are entitled to determine what any other private landowner can or cannot do with their property ["'TND' ordinance is a wolf in sheep's clothing," May 31].
Can someone please point out in the Constitution of this once-fine republic where government was granted by we the people the ability to control private property?
The Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves at the governmental control that now exists over private property. They fully understood that private property--and one's ability to do with it as necessary to better their lives--created the most massive wealth generator in the history of man.
When anyone, not just nobility, had the ability to own property, then their own actions with that property could be used to achieve the "pursuit of happiness."
Look around the world; the countries that have the most liberal private-property ownership rules have the most wealth. Those where ownership of private property is the least are typically the poorest.
Zoning boards, planning commissions, and boards of supervisors have destroyed the original intent of private property. There is no such thing as "sustainable" growth when others think they know best what I should do with my property.
Stephen Despres,
King George
Date published: 6/8/2007
Most recent reader comments:
Get historical!
(posted by
biko
, Sep. 25, 2007 2:41 pm)
Yes, the Founding Fathers were tremedous respectors of property rights. Just ask the Indians, the African-Americans, and anyone else who stood between them and a profit. Stephen needs to read Garret Hardin's classic "The Tragedy of the Commons" to understand why one person's legal liberty to exploit their own property, in a situation of limited resources, ultimately infringes on the liberties of others. What I do on my land affects all of us, since land, air, etc. aren't limitless.
Get your hand out of my pocket
(posted by
MrWonderful
, Sep. 25, 2007 2:41 pm)
Stephen likes his property rights. Only problem is that when Stephen sells to Silver Cos we all have to pay to more. Why are your property rights greater than mine?
Having it both ways
(posted by
Minx
, Sep. 25, 2007 2:41 pm)
Seems like a lot of these large landowners want it both ways - they decry all the developement & want all the newcomers to leave when they demand more services, but at the same time, want to be able to sell out to the next large developer when they decide it's time for them to move on. Can't have it both ways - either you want all the development and sprawl, or you want your old 'peaceful' way of life. Funny how the people who complain the most about property rights seem to have nice large tracts of land.
No compensation with zoning regulations
(posted by
emptyhouses
, Sep. 25, 2007 2:41 pm)
RichOnTheRoad, I don't see Stafford county compensating land owners after zoning regulations deprive them of their property rights. I disagree with Mr. Despres claim about wealth being related to liberal property regulation. Western Europe is very wealthy yet has incredibly restrictive land use regulations. Of course most of that wealth is tied to ownership of the expensive land that the regulation creates. A true self licking ice cream cone.
Read the Constitution
(posted by
RichOnTheRoad
, Sep. 25, 2007 2:41 pm)
"No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation." In other
words, as long as you get a fair hearing and you are justly
compensated, your property may be claimed for what is
thought to be a greater good (the public) according to the
5th amendment.
|
Star Directory
