Despite a year where the insidious side of politics, which includes diversionary tactics, strong arming and a general malaise of bad intentions hovering over the proceedings, the hope could at least be that while the candidates are slinging mud at each other, the general populace of a sleepy town like Athens could be saved. This, unfortunately, has not come to pass, and recent political vandalism in Athens sends a disturbing sign that even politics -the most serious of all arguments -can go much too far.
Some Athens residents, including King Kelly, the brother of independent candidate for sheriff Pat Kelly, have reported vandalism against political signs on their property. Monna French and Richard Carlson, who co-wrote a letter to the editor in The Post yesterday, said they disagreed on their political affiliations but formed a consensus in decrying the destruction and theft of signs.
And well they should. Aggressive partisan political efforts are likely the root cause of broken, paint-smeared and stolen signs,with an end result that is both unlawful and un-American. Disagreeing with another person's opinion is the foundation of American debate, but that is only healthy when both sides are free to express themselves in an unfettered manner. With this recent string of partisan bullying, healthy debate is being squelched, and some Athens residents need to simply agree to disagree.
Property rights and wrongs
With the increasing trend of outsourcing of jobs overseas and heavy tax burdens, today's government plays a pivotal role ensuring that private industry in the United States. stays within the country's borders. It is the responsibility of the government to assure private industries operate successfully, but not at the expense of private citizens. This balancing act is not always easy, especially when dealing with the concept of eminent domain.
The government is within its rights to enforce eminent domain to aid private industry and generate more local revenue, but such an act must only be done when the private citizens are justly compensated. This compensation should reflect the government's appreciation for the land and its commitment to protect citizens as well as business.
The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to decide the circumstances in which local governments have the authority to enforce eminent domain. Traditionally, this power has been used when constructing highways or other public goods. But in this case the court will have to decide if potential increases in tax revenue have more benefit to the public than the seizure of private homes and business. This increase in revenue for local governments is a public good and should be deemed as such. It is unfortunate that citizens be deprived of their hard earned property, but the needs of a few must be sacrificed for the good of the whole.
Eminent domain is an issue that affects citizens around Ohio. In Toledo, citizens and DaimlerChrysler are battling about the expansion of the company onto privately owned land, and Norwood -a city surrounded by Cincinnati -experienced a similar problem a few years ago with the expansion of a shopping center. In both cases, the local governments decided that such private business expansion was beneficial to the area. Such a decision is justifiable, but in order for a fair resolution to these and future controversies, the affected private citizens need to be well compensated for their loss. The compensation for the inconvenience needs to be more than the property's face value. The price paid for the land should reflect the value of the potential increase in tax revenue and also be sufficient to move the displaced citizens to a new, livable residence.
17 Archives
The Post Editorial Board
