The Std-Ex "Weep of the Week"

The land is the only thing in the world
worth working for, worth fighting for,
worth dying for, because it's the only
thing that lasts"
- Gerald O'Hare, Gone With The Wind

Break out your crying towels people. The Ogden Standard-Examiner editorial board is weeping once again, over the loss of the government's eminent-domain power. The citizens of the State of Utah clearly dealt the central planning aparatchiks a truly great blow, when they lobbied their Utah legislators en masse to remove the "nuclear" condemnation power from local municipal RDAs' bag of oppressive tricks. Even the local RDA's lackey hometown newspaper editors are still crying their eyes out now, four months later.

Unlike earlier, however, it isn't the Ogden Wal-Mart project they're weeping about now. They've barely whimpered over that grand disappointment for almost a full week. Whatever therapy they're taking seems to be working, at least on the Wal-Mart topic.

Now it's the Riverwalk Project that's getting them all weepy and misty-eyed. They'll most certainly be needing additional therapy on this as the facts unfold. Loyal Sanduskey Standard-Examiner readers should have seen this coming, of course, with this article, which was published last week, reporting (shudder) that several property owners within Ogden City's Riverwalk project were "holding out," just like a few of them did on the Wal-Mart project.

What the heck's wrong with these people(?), the Standard-Examiner editors ask. Don't they realize they're standing in the way of "progress?" Don't they know that they're thwarting "the greater good" mantras of the eight or so boy genius "planners" who pull down six figure a year "planning salaries" each for Ogden City? Do these anti-social property owners have any idea how much effort local government schemers planners have put into their plan to acquire these recalcitrant citizens' comfortable river-front properties on the cheap so they can be transferred to a rich private developer?

One of the readers on another thread suggested that somebody should question these "holdouts" about their reasons and motives. For my own part, I believe that such a query is entirely unnecessary, and that any answer they may provide is irrelevant. It's their property; and they indicate they don't choose to sell. That ought to be reason enough. Such would be good enough in a truly free society, at least.

Having thrown in my two cents on the subject, you can read today's Std-Ex editorial right here on this very blog. Those gentle readers who are squeamish about heavy doses of guilt-manipulation probably ought not read this, however.

Once you've absorbed the editorial and recovered a little bit from the Std-Ex editorial board's latest outpouring of uncontrollable grief, I have another article for you to read. Entitled The Forgotten Fundamental Right, By Steven Greenhut, it's a nifty little article that clearly articulates the nature of private property rights in a presumedly non-communal and free society such as ours is touted to be. I'll provide a short excerpt here:

But property. Everyone can understand that. I buy a piece of land, build a house on it and live in it with my family - and the state can't bother me unless I'm harboring a fugitive or in some other rare instances. That's freedom. That's the basis for everything we as Americans are supposed to stand for.

And it's something that's continually under assault in America today. It's not just the politicians who view as arcane the traditional concept of property rights, but an increasing number of The People themselves - the very individuals whose lives are what they are because the founders understood the importance of property.

Let's face it. A socialist ethic has taken hold in America. Every time I write a column defending people's property rights against eminent domain or some incursion by envix ronmentalists backed by the power of the state, readers complain that I am a tool of big business or a greedy person seeking profits. Can't I understand that these issues are complicated, and that property rights have to yield to the greater good of saving the planet or eliminating blight or promoting responsible planning?

What these critics advocate is a form of majoritarianism, in which everyone has a say on everyone else's business. It's the antithesis of what the American founding is all about, and the perfect embodiment of the oft-quoted definition of democracy: Two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Be sure to read the entire article. It really is quite good.

These "obstructionist" holdouts ought to be able to say "No, thank you," and that ought to be the end of the discussion. That's how it would be, anyway, in a truly free, non-communalist society.

Your comments are invited as usual.