Letters, 2/28: Whose ‘public use'?
digg it!
Facebook
del.icio.us
Seed Newsvine
Fark It
Reddit
One of the fundamental rights as U.S. citizens is the right to own property. It is essential, if democracy and capitalism are to work. The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution says, "No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."
John Q. Hammons has looked at the Lincoln map and put his finger on a block downtown. He wants to build a hotel, a business, so he can make money. Hammons, however, has a problem. There are already people who own that block, who own businesses, and who are making their own money.
For most of us, the solution is simple. If someone wanted to buy our house, we would either say, "No, thank you, it's not for sale," or give them a price we would be willing to sell it for, maybe even a little something extra for the inconvenience of an unexpected move.
However, Hammons doesn't like this solution. He wants the property now, and he doesn't want to pay for it. Strangely enough, our mayor and City Council seem more than willing to do this for him. So what happened to democracy and capitalism?
Don't get me wrong: I'd love it if Hammons built his hotels in Lincoln. I don't mean to be hard on him. After all, he's taking risks, creating jobs and paying his taxes. But what about this deal is "for public use"? Do we who live and work in Lincoln get to stay at the hotel for free? I highly doubt it.
So a message to the mayor and City Council: How about you let our market economy do its job. Stay away from our property unless you need to build a road or bridge or something. Then just compensate us fairly for our time and trouble. But don't violate our constitutional rights for a little more revenue, or you may find yourselves without a job. Of course, there may be openings at this new hotel I keep hearing about.
Craig Kohtz, Lincoln
Majority has spoken
This is in response to the column about "tinkering" with the smoking ban (LJS, Feb. 16). I would like to ask: What is the purpose of having something in the election if the council members can just overturn or amend it!
What is the reason to even bother putting anything to the vote of the people of Lincoln? With more than 60 percent of the people (the voters) approving the total ban, how dare anyone try to change it.
The people have spoken loud and clear. They want to be able to go places such as restaurants and bars and not have to worry about their health from someone else's disgusting smoke.
No one is telling smokers they can't smoke. They just can't do it in public places. That way they only ruin their own health and not that of others who may not choose to ruin their health, not to mention the disgusting odor that is left on their hair and clothing.
I can't believe the council would consider it in the first place, but to say that one bartender complained about a drop in tips, and that was what prompted it! Since when does one person change the vote of more than 60 percent?
Connie Urbauer, Lincoln
A very good thing for city
Some years ago I was involved in the redevelopment of North 27th Street. Having property in that area, I cooperated with the city and sold it my portion. The city dealt fairly with me. Other property was obtained through eminent domain, and the result was that North 27th Street has been, and is being, redeveloped into an attractive gateway to the city.
Now, as a property owner across the street from the proposed hotel, I look forward to the successful development of that property. My tenants include small businesses: LaMar's Donuts, Sher-E-Punjab, Cost Cutters — all locally owned businesses that will profit from this development. The hotel would be well-situated adjacent to the University of Nebraska-Lincoln campus and afford convenient accommodations for all campus activities. With the expectation of 100 jobs generated by this hotel, plus jobs resulting from further development in the area associated with the hotel, I believe it will be a very good thing for Lincoln.
I urge the City Council to move forward on this project.
Sheldon Kushner, Lincoln
Good life, but for all?
It is interesting to examine how President Bush's budget proposals would affect Nebraskans, who pride themselves on living in a state that provides the "good life" for its residents.
According to the Children's Defense Fund, a child in Nebraska is born into poverty every three hours, and there are 33,000 Nebraska children (and 9 million children in the United States as a whole) who do not have health insurance. Instead of trying to ameliorate this problem, President Bush is proposing to cut at least $45 billion over 10 years in Medicaid nationally, which results in a loss of $238 million in health care funding for Nebraska's neediest children and families.
The Children's Defense Fund also reports that in this state, a child is abused or neglected every two hours. Nationally, a child is abused or neglected every 35 seconds. Instead of supporting effective programs that would help these children, Bush is proposing to give states the option to spend federal funds for services for abused and neglected children in a way that holds the states less accountable and ends the guarantee to provide a safety net for them.
What are Bush's priorities? He wants to make permanent his tax cuts for millionaires. In Nebraska, each of the 636 millionaires will receive an average of $136,298 in tax cuts annually. The total giveaway in Nebraska alone will be $87 million each year (Children's Defense Fund, 2005). That would be enough to provide health insurance for 12,209 uninsured Nebraska children. People in this state who are concerned about moral values and basic human decency should be outraged by these proposals and by what they say about the priorities of this administration.
Jessica Wiederspan, Lincoln
Wait on acquisitions
Regarding the city's interest in acquiring properties by eminent domain for the Antelope Valley Project, it seems prudent to wait on the U.S. Supreme Court decision. It may be decided that private-public ventures do not qualify for allowing the government to take private property for public use.
People should be notified of such planned seizures of property by public officials, not the news media.
Property values should not be lowered prior to such seizures.
The definition of blighted property needs to be revisited by the City Council.
Nancy M. Russell, Lincoln
New leadership needed
Let's vote! Our opportunity is fast approaching to vote for three of our seven Lincoln City Council members. I believe that it is time we as a city need to look to new leaders and leadership of our great community. Lincoln needs to be a friendly, welcoming, forward-thinking and a happening place. Our City Council and mayor are the elected officials who affect our lives more than any other elected officials.
I have just moved back to this wonderful city in which I was raised only to find a city with a great need to improve its traffic problem. That is widening into four lanes 27th Street south of South Street, to widen 48th Street from South Street to Nebraska 2, and 56th Street from Cotner Boulevard to South Street. I saw a huge lack of support not for the projects, but lack of support of the City Council when the bond issue was voted down to improve our streets.
I have seen the council impose impact taxes or fees on new building lots and developments. (Not all of them, just some.) I watch the city sell off two of its assets. It sold part of Holmes Lake golf course to a private party. I just never have heard of a city selling part of a city park to a private party before. It also sold the Federal Building (the old post office).
In the latest adventures of the council, members want to "relocate" several small, thriving businesses from 17th and P streets to make way for a new hotel. I'm sorry, but that is just wrong.
Anyway, my point is that we need new leadership. Leadership with some foresight and integrity. If nothing else, just vote for change.
Jim Tiedeman, Lincoln
Post Your Comment
Standards and RulesYour posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.