Vote Yes on Proposal 4

I strongly disagree with the Observer’s position on Proposal 4 which addresses eminent domain. James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams recognized that private property rights were absolutely necessary for a free society. In fact, many of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights stem from the concept of property rights as defined by philosopher John Locke. We own our thoughts (freedom of speech and religion); we own our lives (right to bear arms); and as is commonly understood, we own our belongings (right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures).

The Founders understood that sometimes the need to take private property was necessary. However, they knew the potential abuses that would occur and limited the takings to public uses while requiring just compensation. Unfortunately, at times our state and federal courts have been staffed with judges incapable of understanding the definition of “public” and have rendered the concept of private property obsolete. Proposal 4 will stop these judges and rein in out-of-control local officials. In addition, it provides a formal definition of “just compensation.”

According to the Observer, the government needs the currently broad definition of “public” in order to promote economic development and the “general welfare.” This is a short-sighted and incomplete understanding of what general welfare means.

Voter should ask themselves, what promotes the common good more - protecting your home and the homes of your neighbors or transferring your property to a business that might create jobs? What solidifies this country’s foundation for prosperity - standing for a basic principle upon which our freedom rests or increasing tax revenues so politicians can spend more?

To protect your home and stand for principles, vote Yes on Proposal 4.

[Letter to the Editor - Farmington Observer. Published 10/29/2006.]