Sen. Greg Walker has introduced SB 67 which would prohibit use of condemnation powers for the purpose of constructing trails for non-motorized transportation. Specifically, it says that the power of eminent domain can’t be used to take the property of a private person if the proposed use is for bicycling, hiking, running, walking, riding on an animal or engage in “any other purely recreational activity.”
Being against eminent domain generally is one thing. I think it’s simplistic and shortsighted to be against the government taking an individual’s property – but it’s a principled and understandable position. This bill seems like something else again. Eminent domain for more highways, railroads, and utilities is apparently agreeable. But try to improve the community’s quality of life and maybe make it easier for your citizens to be active and, well, no – can’t have that.
Seems to reflect a very narrow view of what constitutes the public good.
I’m pretty sure it’s just about pissing off the dirty liberal hippies.
Seems like another day in public office for Greg Walker, the savior for all those who found Bob Garton just too darn liberal. You’d expect Walker to be enlightened in any way shape or form?
In fairness, Bob Garton did not take the bold pro-public flogging stance that Walker did.
This needs to move forward towns are using Eminent domain threats to take good property. Please move this SB 67 forward!!!!!!!!!!!!
So does the bill mean that, since Walker doesn’t want trails with people riding animals on them, he’s now anti-flogging animals but for flogging people?
It’s a stupid bill since you could argue any trail can be used for people to commute to work and, voila, it’s no longer “purely recreational”. And if you use the trail to walk to church, is that OK? Just a sign of someone who shouldn’t be in elected office.
I’d make fun of Walker more but I did just move from Sen. Bray’s district … into Sen. Waltz. I can’t wait for what he’s going to submit.
He’s pissing off at least one Crunchy Con, too. My pissed off factor is roughly doubled because I just finished The Geography of Nowhere this afternoon
Is that a good read? I did a quick search on the title, and it sounds interesting.
No. We desperately need this. These “trails” are destroying the roads in Indianapolis, and they are not a valid public purpose. There is runaway radical liberalism in the development offices of Indiana cities and counties, and they are from the generations which have learning nothing but bad idea upon bad idea.
Those who use the trails and move their tax dollars to the area so they can use them would disagree that they are “not a valid public purpose”.
The fix is to vote differently, not to pass a new law. If people don’t want trails, they should vote out those who advocate them.
If you don’t like where you live, move. I did. I found the county from which Sen. Walker sprung from embarrassingly short-sighted in several ways, trails among them. So I moved elsewhere. Done.
If you find Indiana too liberal, move.
“Runaway radical liberalism”? Indeed, those people who don’t have cars should just suffer. The meek may inherit the earth, but heaven forbid they have a place to walk.
The Supreme Court rejected Texas’s “move” argument in Roe v. Wade.
Are you content to reallow Texas’s position? Blacks could have left the South and moved to New York to avoid racism in the 50’s. Would you have found that to be a legal course?
” Indeed, those people who don’t have cars should just suffer.”
Absolutely.
Joe, this is a car world, especially a car state and city. Economies run on cars.
Buy a car. Restaurants and shops I frequent can be 25 miles from my house. I love it. What I don’t love are lanes being destroyed to give overgrown sidewalks on public roads for bicycles and pedestrians.
At most, pedestrians are entitled to a sidewalk. That’s it.
So what you love is more valid than what I love?
“Valid” is an incorrect word. You already know the answer to your complaint. If this were Shanghai, your preferences would be entitled to greater respect. In America, particularly in a part of the country that gets five months of Winter, your preferences are those of a minor, oddball, segment of the population that make no economic sense to indulge.
We had it right decades ago when we built sidewalks on roadway rights-of-way. Sidewalks took only what was necessary to accommodate pedestrians, leaving the bulk of the road for the highest-valued economic use.
The complete absence of economic sense with these idiotic “bike lanes” on public streets is a mistake that we will have to undo.
The bikes are going to be either in front of the car, alongside it in a bike lane, or away from it on a people trail.
They’re not going away (the trend is that they’re increasing), and they have always been recognized as vehicles by law.
The question isn’t if there will be bike, but if the bikes are going to be in the car’s way. What would you prefer? Waiting until you can pass, or having the bike out of your way?
It’s not necessary for the bikes to “go away.” Nobody rides them, in the first place. Even in places with great weather, such as Houston, Miami, Tampa, etc., you see very few bicycles being used as primary transportation. In almost every city, bicycles are used as you would expect, recreationally.
These public works projects for bicycles are make-work projects for contractors and social vision busywork of the meddling occupations. They’re merely self-congratulatory nonsense in furtherance of an unrealistic and child-like social vision. No major American economy will ever be built around a bicycling population.
I saw no bicycles on the road, today. Why is that?
Let’s not devote more than a modest slice of governmental attention to a novelty and a recreational activity.
Wouldn’t this be the complete negation of the original Eminent Domain? It morphed from “public use” to “public good” so that, in Fort Wayne for instance, property can be seized if it doesn’t generate the kind of money that it could potentially generate under somebody else’s ownership. Thus, the property is still privately owned and the public may not use it but the public can always use the extra money. This bill would do away with the “public use” aspect altogether — saying that it is NOT in the public good to seize property for public use.
Well, only if the public use is for something as frivolous as walking, running, or recreating. Public use for driving cars and hauling goods from the factory is still a-ok.
“Seems to reflect a very narrow view of what constitutes the public good.”
Not at all. The highest public good is the strongest possible recognition of the inviolability of one’s property. It is a sad day when property is forcibly taken, and only the most necessary use should be allowed the government.
All that land in cities and towns isn’t the business of a meddlesome urban planner to use to design nifty redesigned cities. The government can’t look at a man’s land or even notice its existence unless the country or economy will collapse if a right of way is denied.
We have a very different view of the respect private property is due. People’s homes and lands are not merely assets that can be moved across a game board, as no man is fit to control another man’s property.
If the old Jones farmhouse stands on land on which some planner would like to build a mixed-use park, too bad.
WRONG!
Private property is a fundamentally authoritarian and oppressive construct, that is incompatible with and has no place in a free society. If you didn’t hate freedom and individual liberty with every ounce of your being, you’d know that already.
“Private property is a fundamentally authoritarian and oppressive construct, that is incompatible with and has no place in a free society.”
And yet we all know that the truth is that private property is the essence of freedom. Communitarianism is the essence of a totalitarian state.
What has become of America? How far we have fallen to indulge ideas that should earn a punch in the face to the speaker. So many Americans are now Pajama Boys.
Except it’s not. It is private property that makes it possible for one man to compel another to serve him in order to obtain the material requirements of mere survival.
It’s like not having the slightest clue what you’re talking about, is a badge of pride for you.
“Communitarianism” and “state” are a contradiction in terms. Furthermore, totalitarianism rests on hierarchy, which is wholly incompatible with communitarianism.
I know you have some peace-and-love kibbutz utopia worked out in your head, but common ownership is the most potent fuel for tyrants.
There is a balance to be had between private property rights and the public interest. Perceptions on where the correct balance is will differ; often depending on whether you stand to gain or lose from the adjustment.
“There is a balance to be had between private property rights and the public interest.”
You’re going to have to do a lot more work to define your terms. “Public interest” is dangerously vague and open-ended. The Cultural Revolution was conducted in the “public interest.”
Further, where did I ever give a gang of others permission to jam a lever under my property rights and attempt to “balance” them?
Except in the real world, where the opposite is true. Making stuff up gets you nowhere.
Dead wrong, again. Every last tyrant, genocidal nutjob and dictator rode in under the banner of communitarianism. No murderous thug ever existed who inscribed all the law books with the imperative for every man to tend to his own affairs and for the government to withdraw as much as possible from meddling in the free commerce of the citizens.
All murderous thugs? Every last one? Either you know an awful lot about murderous thugs or this is some sort of histrionic effort to get people to swallow your statement.
EVERY
LAST
ONE
Think about it, Stuart. What does a ruler, himself, own? Who does a ruler, himself, command? Vis-a-vis the ordinary citizen, he’s doing well, but he doesn’t own every ounce of gold, every acre of land or every storefront in the kingdom.
In order for a ruler to conduct a nasty enterprise against his own people, he must sell some, ideally all, of the people on the hope of a better future where they end up better off than they were prior to his rule. The people give the ruler what he wants in exchange for allowing the program, or earlier on, the ruler’s ascension to the seat of government.
The only thing the ruler has to bargain with (bearing in mind that a ruler could be a single person, a triumverate, a congress or a politburo) is the wealth and social ordering of the entire country. He, himself, has little to trade with the people.
All nasty rulers need for the people to accept that the whole of the country is to be operated centrally for the common good. Having access to the status and wealth over every last person in the country will always exceed a ruler’s individual wealth and power. A ruler who fully permits the fortunes of individuals to rise and fall while the government is a fully detached observer will never wield the power of a communitarian ruler.
It’s simple arithmetic.
Given that the very idea of a “communitarian ruler” is a contradiction in terms, it is once again abundantly clear that Freedom* has no clue what he’s talking about?
* Incidentally, it appears that (judging from this “Freedom” person) the new trend on the Internet is to name yourself after something you hate. I was not aware of that trend, so to be clear: I very much enjoy Steely Dan.
Making stuff up again, I see?
Now you’re just contradicting yourself, because what you just described is a communist society.
Once again, it appears that not having the slightest clue what you’re talking about is a badge of pride for you. Not that I expected any different from an enemy of freedom and liberty and a friend of oppression and authoritarianism such as yourself, of course.
Dan, you’re deeply confused. Please take a greater time before responding, if at all.
I’m not the one whose worldview depends on being completely divorced from reality and making stuff to fill in the gaps thus created.
That was a non-response of a strong of non sequiturs and cliches. Do you have an actual example you can use to rebut my position?
“string”
An “actual example”? Given that your position is entirely divorced from reality, I present, as an “actual example. . .to rebut [your] position”: reality.
Lame.
“What has become of America? How far we have fallen to indulge ideas that should earn a punch in the face to the speaker.”
Spare us the soapbox and martyr complex. Your lack of intellectual consistency is laughable. Either all uses of eminent domain are bad or they’re all OK. The position that it’s OK for the government to build roads but not other means of transport?
You typify the problem with the modern Republican Party – no intellectual depth, no acknowledgement that society is better with a mix of ideas. Never looking forward, just complaining that things will never be as good as they were in your perception of the past. A government that, when it exists, should only do so to benefit you at the detriment of all others. Little wonder the party will not exist in 30 years.
I expected more after your vacation from here.
” Either all uses of eminent domain are bad or they’re all OK.”
That makes no sense, whatsoever. You really expect us to believe that building a bridge across the Mississippi and taking land under governmental power for the Colts’ stadium stand on equal moral footing?
Your fallacy is the “false dichotomy.”
“The position that it’s OK for the government to build roads but not other means of transport?” Where did I exclude ships, trucks, airplanes? Indeed, where did I even exclude pedestrians? Sidewalks existed for over a century with only occasional Liberty-minded objection.
“You typify the problem with the modern Republican Party – no intellectual depth,” How are you allowed to engage in trolling and uncivil behaviour without any sanction from the landlord? Further, how am I a Republican?
Again, you fail by appealing to your false dichotomies.
I think that somewhere we might be losing focus here. This bill only limits the use of condemnation powers, not the entirety of the eminent domain process. It’s establishing a check and balance system where one doesn’t exist. Having two bureaucracies run by non-elected officials that are able to forcibly act upon private property owners in a fashion that renders their property to the public is the problem…”voting differently” doesn’t fix that. This law would put a barricade in the middle of an area where bureaucratic collusion is not only likely, but damn near guaranteed. It happens between zoning and planning boards all the time….and it sucks.
“It’s establishing a check and balance system where one doesn’t exist. Having two bureaucracies run by non-elected officials that are able to forcibly act upon private property owners in a fashion that renders their property to the public is the problem…”voting differently” doesn’t fix that.”
In my county government days, projects still had to be approved by the elected commissioners, who appointed/renewed members to planning/zoning. What am I missing here?
**makes popcorn**
**enjoys**
“You really expect us to believe that building a bridge across the Mississippi and taking land under governmental power for the Colts’ stadium stand on equal moral footing?”
If you’re against taking land, be against taking ALL land. Your current situation appears to be “I’m OK with the government taking from others what benefits me, but heaven forbid the government take anything from me that benefits others”.
If it’s the former, that’s just the way of the world (It’s a car world”), if it’s the latter, it’s “communitarianism is the essence of a totalitarian state.”
Further, did you read the details of the bill being discussed?
Walker’s bill doesn’t even address what you’re complaining about. Way I read it, it has very little to do with trails and would be used primarily as anti-sidewalk legislation. The government would only have the legal authority to acquire the land needed to build the road, not what’s needed for the sidewalks.
So if there’s a four lane road, and there are sidewalks needed, the best option remaining would be to … convert a lane of traffic to sidewalks, as land can no longer be acquired to build a sidewalk.
Government efficiency, indeed.
And, in fact, we need more sidewalks. Not more “trails.”
Joe, what you’re missing is that commissioners working hand-in-hand with their own appointees to advance their own agenda(s) is hardly a guarantee of balanced, transparent government. There are precious few laws to prevent outright corruption in the process. A recent situation here in Allen County saw two county commissioners push through zoning changes and then eminent domain action that put a large quantity of land they owned in a prime situation for them to develop the land and make millions…with a shiny new interstate exit that was built on other people’s land with even other people’s money. Is that clear enough for you?
Sure, plenty clear. But how does Greg Walker’s bill help with stopping abuse like what you’re describing?
If what needs to be stopped is all taking of land, that’s OK with me. But can someone point me to the problem that Walker’s bill is trying to stop – an elected official is trying to condemn a property to build a park or trail?
Remember, the next act could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
Nothing wrong with preventative pro-freedom measures.
Mushroom clouds? Did you get an early start on celebrating 2014?
I’d like the legislative branch to focus on solving actual problems. However, it appears that the majority of legislators are elected because sending them to Indianapolis means a village somewhere has one less idiot to deal with. So, I have grown less and less surprised with the nonsense masquerading as “government” that Doug finds each year. It’s equal parts funny, sad, and frustrating.
“Nothing wrong with preventative pro-freedom measures.”
Wasn’t that the justification for the TSA? We could only defend our freedoms … by treating everyone as a possible criminal and spending billions on security theatre that doesn’t
work? Glad I can buy some of my freedom back for only $85 thanks to TSA PreCheck.
Our freedoms are gone and no one seems to care. Too bad people don’t stand up to the government monitoring all their communications as much as they care about the the 2nd Amendment.
Joe, when I started to take this legislation seriously, I was astounded by some of that stuff, proposed by people who knew about one issue, but only marginally, so they thought a law would “fix” it. Thankfully, there seems to be one or two people who stop a lot of the total craziness, but after I’ve written the letter to my rep and senator (who systematically ignore me, especially the right winger, who operates in an evidence-free world), I can just watch the show and read you guys. I get perspective knowing that I’m not alone in this.
Joe, the greatest ‘actual problem” we face in Indiana is any possible infection of liberalism. If the Jonas Salks in the Statehouse are out giving inoculations, blessed be their work.
“If the Jonas Salks in the Statehouse are out giving inoculations, blessed be their work.”
They’re more like Linus Pauling walking around telling everyone to take a lot of Vitamin C.
Who will be the first to publish “Agendas at Work: A Guide to Indiana Legislators”? It would alphabetically list each legislator, with a chapter being dedicated to each one. Each chapter would discuss each person’s background, description of constituents, personal and political agendas, crazy things they have said, a summary of their voting records and how they have benefited. Put it on sale about a month before the legislature meets and update it on a regular basis. You will have something to do and a good income for as long as you want, or as long as you survive, whichever comes first.
When that book, updated regularly, is a classic, you can publish another one, “More Agendas at Work: Indiana’s county politicians”. Both books will be recommended reading in all high schools and university government classes.
That’s not a book idea, it’s a website idea. Think Wikipedia…
Should have thought about that first. I tried it out with the two guys mentioned in this blog posting, but they only give the objective numbers. That’s O.K., but we need to see some of the outlandish statements gathered together in one place. As we all know, many of these people don’t have the sense to realize the impact of their remarks on the general public while pleasing their constituents. Some of those “constituents” must be something else if they are happy with some of those remarks.
Hey guys, save your ammunition for the upcoming legislative circus. I just saw SB100 by Sen. Kruse that proposes “the liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, and care of their child is a fundamental right.” Considering the fact that the Federal special education law stipulates that the right to an education belongs to the child, not the parent, along with a number of other interesting laws that seem to say that providing an education is the duty of the state, this could stir up some interesting flotsam. Sounds like a home school advocate that wants to tell the state “don’t tread on me”, but what happens when the parent who says they have that right simply use their kids as babysitters or put them to work in the family business or digging trenches in their basement?
What utter nonsense. Children aren’t possessions; parents have no rights or liberties towards them–that’s the slaveowner’s mentality. Parents have only duties and obligations towards those children with whose upbringing society has entrusted them, and if they can’t or won’t fulfill them properly and adequately, they get relieved of their duties and replaced with someone else.
Sure sounds reasonable to me. As the great poet, Kahlil Gibran says, “Your children are not your children. They are the sons and daughters of Life longing for itself…”–a thought that seems to have escaped a number of the great thinkers in our legislature. Come to the circus!
“What utter nonsense. Children aren’t possessions; parents have no rights or liberties towards them”
Again, you’re dead wrong. Parents have absolute authority over children and the education of children. You, thus the state, have no right to meddle.
All you’re looking to do is to control and indoctrinate other people’s children.
So when my two-year old says “no”, and I’ve had some drinks, it’s just fine if I throw him into my pond. Or if I need some extra money, take him out of school for a year and put him to work. Just like ancient Rome, I have complete “freedom”, because it’s all about me. I have “absolute authority”.
Stuart, if you’re looking to equate ancient Rome with a parent educating a child on right and wrong, and with a curriculum of good, hard, math, history and reading, you’re going to fail.
Parents don’t want equality, recycling, environmentalism, tolerance, self-esteem, androgyny, heterophobia and all other manner of sins and nonsense infecting their children.
Didn’t I read the words “Parents have absolute authority over children and the education of children”? Must have been someone else who calls himself “Freedom” unless Mr. “Freedom” believes that hyperbole trumps responsible communication. (People don’t listen to you any better or respect you more when you make insulting, demeaning or exaggerated comments.)
If you are just a troll, just tell us, so we can ignore you and get on with life. Now, if you behave as usual, we should prepare for one of those irresponsible insults you like to hand out when you run short of attempts at rational communication.
This came across my podcatcher this morning… interesting given this discussion above.
http://www.ted.com/talks/mick_cornett_how_an_obese_town_lost_a_million_pounds.html
Based on some Googling, they used condemnation and eminent domain to acquire some of the land. And, oh yeah, Cornett’s a Republican.
http://www.okgazette.com/oklahoma/article-11247-park-and-go.html
Joe, an inspiring story. Did you also notice that when they focused on health, they made changes that improved the quality of life and subsequently drew businesses and quality people to the city? What a lesson for our politicians!
Now, that’s the kind of Republican we need. He’s concerned for the common good, not into weird conspiratorial stuff and actually wants to make things better. That’s a bit of good news. Thanks.
Freedom,
I’ll join your rant on the evils of E.D. (snicker….E.D.) if you join me in contacting Mr. Walker to remove the language talking about people trails.
If E.D. is evil, let’s ban it. If it is allowed for cars and trucks, it should be allowed for bikes.
“If E.D. is evil, let’s ban it. If it is allowed for cars and trucks, it should be allowed for bikes.”
Without comment on eminent domain, your statement doesn’t follow.
I’m saying that if you think we should never user eminent domain, then why single out bikes and pedestrian uses of it? Why not ban the use of it completely?
“I’m saying that if you think we should never user eminent domain…”
Where did I say that?
My mistake, I inferred it from this:
“The highest public good is the strongest possible recognition of the inviolability of one’s property”
You can see the Communist influence of such abominations as the Monon Trail. I’ve seen Mike Delph running on it, and look at what a raging liberal it made him.