tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9586853.post1365458083667069590..comments2023-10-06T03:05:25.998-05:00Comments on Edgewater Observer: Historic Preservation Battle Now In Progress in Edgewater, ChicagoJeff Wegersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14189849564942186511noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9586853.post-41620008345498312292009-08-08T04:42:31.755-05:002009-08-08T04:42:31.755-05:00"Historic Preservation Battle Now In Progress..."Historic Preservation Battle Now In Progress in Edgewater, Chicago"<br />___________________<br />Julie<br /><a href="http://www.paydayloancashonline.com/" rel="nofollow">No Credit Checks instant Payday Loans</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9586853.post-28059227870998243702009-01-14T16:02:00.000-06:002009-01-14T16:02:00.000-06:00Todd,I prefer the blog software at Prairie State B...Todd,<BR/><BR/>I prefer the blog software at <A HREF="http://www.prairiestateblue.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=4763" REL="nofollow">Prairie State Blue</A> for these kinds of discussions. I would prefer that we continue the discussion there. Indeed I have posted this discussion there (without your name) and have a long reply there.<BR/><BR/>But if not then I will simply say that I consider private property a privilege and not a right. And yes I own real estate.<BR/><BR/>Jeff WegersonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9586853.post-16724393898048333132009-01-14T14:01:00.000-06:002009-01-14T14:01:00.000-06:00Placing toothbrushes and humans under the same bro...Placing toothbrushes and humans under the same broad category of private ownership is very much equating the two. Maybe they shouldn't be categorized so broadly, since one group consists of inanimate objects with no inherent rights versus living people endowed with human rights.<BR/><BR/>This problem of defining things so broadly is what I feel is a major pitfall of eminent domain rulings and policies, and ultimately what leads to abuse and wildly varying definitions of it, such as Kelo v New London.<BR/><BR/>I agree with you that communities are enriched when those who choose to have voices in debates on historical preservation and the like. I, too, live in Edgewater, and so am familiar with the terrain you have a personal stake in. But democracy in these matters can be a double-edged sword because at its core, democracy is really the same thing as "majority rule." When others are using their property (without harming anyone else, mind you) in a way that is disagreeable to the majority, the majority can effectively vote away that person's private property rights. And let's not forget that the voice of the people is almost always trumped by vested special interests, in bed with governments, who can overturn private property rights with influence (again, Kelo as an example). Don't get me wrong: I'm not stating that private property should be unlimited, as your response suggests. What I do believe is that there should be restrictions on the ability of others (governments, "the people") to trample on the rights of private property owners.<BR/><BR/>Mr Wegerson, I don't know you, and so I don't know if you own property or, if you're like me, rent space. And yes, democracy can be a wonderful thing in that it allows people to be engaged in their communities. But that tricky majority rules thing can backfire. I wonder, for example, if you'd be such a strong proponent of eminent domain if that majority were to turn on you.<BR/><BR/>Respectfully,<BR/><BR/>Todd LandAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9586853.post-57292694153905820712009-01-13T13:41:00.000-06:002009-01-13T13:41:00.000-06:00I do not "equate" them, I merely place them within...I do not "equate" them, I merely place them within the broad category of private ownership. In the same category is the private ownership of toothbrushes. Also there is the ownership of pets, i.e. animals.<BR/><BR/>The argument is that the privilege of private ownership is not un-limited. We place limits on that privilege. Government regulations are a type of limit. You could call the ban on slavery, the ban on owning other people, a kind of government regulation.<BR/><BR/>So yes, I would be in favor of placing limits on the ownership of say real estate, property, on the shore of Lake Michigan in the city of Chicago. Likewise I would support placing limits on the ownership of "historic" real estate.<BR/><BR/>So yes again, I support eminent domain when it is governed by democratic process.<BR/><BR/>-Jeff WegersonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9586853.post-5718811040130141982009-01-13T12:37:00.000-06:002009-01-13T12:37:00.000-06:00I'm not sure why you equate private ownership of o...I'm not sure why you equate private ownership of objects (such as real estate) with that of ownership of human beings (slavery). Seems like a rather odd and misguided argument in support of eminent domain.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com