well said
----- Original Message ---- From: justifiedright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: AsburyPark@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 4:50:21 PM Subject: [AsburyPark] Re: Belmar - Eminent Domain Dan I agree with the philosophy of your post here about the use of ED. However, I don't think I tried to pin something on JK. That sounds like I was ascribing to him postions he does not hold. I pointed out that at anti-ED rallies he called for a State-Wide moretorium on ED. At the same time he did that, he was co-chair of a committee that recommended the use of ED (co-chair with another man who says he does not favor ED). Those facts are true. My analysis of those facts is that his positions are inconsistent. If I'm in a bad mood I'll say hypocritical. He reads this board. If he would like to clear it up, he can. I don't believe he posted anything about this the first time it was brought up. I know what it is like to be on the losing end of ED. It happened to my family. Real tears are shed. It is a VERY emotional time. People at those rallies are in an emotional state. To show up and promise so strongly to be in their camp (accompanied by great applause I'm sure) all while actually furthering the cause of the other side is not the sign of someone who cares about them, it is the sign of a guy looking for votes, trading on their emotional state. It's like lying to crime victims about helping them, and then passing legislation that helps the perpetrator. In my opinion. Let him tell me why I'm wrong. --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] ups.com, "dfsavgny" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] .> wrote: > > --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED] ups.com, Allan Peterson <nnjallans1@ > > wrote: > > > > I agree there is no difference in properties. I hate to see a > business that a person put everything into only to then loose it to > development. Couldn't a councilman propose this and not include the > waterfront since that has already been given the ok? > > > > Yes they could. Although I am sure you know that the city has > indicated that it might use eminent domain for the Springwood project > and I am sure that there is the same danger with regard to Main > Street when it gets off the ground. Ed Johnson is unilaterally > opposed to eminent domain (except for public use I think) and so I > would think that he would be the natural source of such an ordinance > but I doubt that it has the necessary 3 votes. Also, I assume that > his Future Team mates would be opposed to such an ordinance. Ed gets > to keep his conscience clear by simply voting no on his own for > eminent domain. Although Tommy tried to pin it on Keady with > Springwood, I don't recall Keady ever saying he was unilaterally > opposed to eminent domain. > > If you don't like a particular property because of actual > circumstances (substandard, etc.) there are plenty of laws to enforce > to make them tow the line. Sorry, but in my book unless its for a > true public use, it's a no no to condemn it just because you want > something else there. > > Equitable treatment. Let the public at large pay for the benefit, not > a particular property owner or owners. That is also my beef with rent > regs. > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather
