Portland, Tennessee Blog

eminent domain is communism plain and simple.
the right to private property is the basis of the fighting and dying in the revolutionary war.the first amendment is great, the third is awsome, the fourth and fifth etc. all are basic freedoms we all enjoy, but the most important is the second amendment. without it we would be a police state and the other amendments would be null and void.remember when you vote that liberal democrats want to deny the 2nd amendment rights to anybody except the gestapo.there is a cool bumper-sticker i've been seeing that says life is a bitch, so dont vote for one!

Daniel, I suppose it is. I'm glad Erin asked for more info and time -- it just seemed to me they were wanting a fast vote & I'm still wondering what the rush is.

Deanna-I meant this issue particularly because I agree that eminent domain is a huge issue. But in the Jackson Road case I think it's a pretty fair deal for both parties.

Daniel - I don't think so. I think that we have to be very careful that everything be done as fairly and honestly as possible and time be given to make sure that everything has been covered and nothing be done in haste just to get something passed that someone wants done. Erin did the right thing by asking for more time and requesting more information.

There should be no doubts left in anyone's mind that it wasn't handled properly.

This issue is widening a road on Jackson Road, the next issue may be someone wanting to take yours or my proerty because it's in a good location to build a retail business, apartments, or something else ..... it's happening all over the United States: the taking of property to increase revenue for cities & developers to increase the property values for developers of land that otherwise wouldn't be.

Eminent domain is something to really keep your eyes on, as far as I'm concerned.

Jody-no sweat, I think the whole issue has been made into a bigger deal than it really is.

ROFLMAO Jody- I just woke up and was having a cup of coffee . . . and almost ruined my keyboard when I read what "sounded" like that you were DWT! (driving while typing) I know better, but it gave me a good laugh. Have a safe trip home my friend.

please pardon my grammar, I'm trying to type while going down the road, didn't check it before I sent it. Should have said "buy" the property, not "but". and was trying to say "he WASN'T asking for anything unreasonable"

Daniel, I think I may be the one who you're talking about from the council meeting. I apologize if I have that whole situation confused. Mr. Gilliam called me while I was out of town and wanted to know if I had read the paper which had just came out, he said it appeard that someone was incinuating that he was trying to do something under-handed by bargaining with the property. He was upset that the media didn't contact him for "his side of the story". I ASSURED him that of ALL reporters, you were the best in my opinion at getting the accurate story, and that there must be a reason you didn't speak with him. I was just simply trying to clarify at the council meeting as to what actually took place. I didn't really mean that YOU misquoted the info from the meeting, but waht i meant to say was your report was misunderstood. If you'll ask Mr. Gilliam, that was the conversation between he and I. This has been an issue that has gone on for quite some time (the property negotiations) Mr. Gilliam didn't really care if they bought his property or not. The deal was, he didn't really want to sell his property, but stated that IF they would allow him to but the other excess property for the same per square foot as what they were giving him for his, that he would go ahead and enter into the agreement so it could get done and over with. In my opinion, he was asking for anything unreasonable, and something that's been done many times before perfectly legal. I do however agree with some of the concerns from the council meeting, that Mr. George, who also has property that meets the excess property, should also be at least given the opportunity as well. Please accept my apology if this became tangled into something misunderstanding.

Wanna see the ultimate in Eminent Domain?

Read up on what the beloved Andrew Jackson did to the Cherokee and keep in mind when he did this...he was defying a supreme court ruling.

This same thing will eventually happen again under the guise of Eminant Domain if something is not done about it.

I, too have often thought about this problem as I watch farms and fields being subdivided and used for residential and commercial purposes. I saw my Grandfather's 320 acre farm divided into 5-acre lots and used to build McMansions. It broke my heart.

Then I stopped to realize that the property that my house sits on was once part of somebody's Grandpa's farm, and I'm using it to live on. I guess that's what progress is all about.

The question remains; where does it all end? Once a field has been built on and paved, can it ever be used again for agricultural purposes? Where will the people of this country get their food in 100 years, if we pave and landscape every farm? As in all things, there needs to be balance.

I think it is something that the citizens and/or business owners of Portland should be thinking about on a regular basis as discussions of growth continue.

The Constitution is one thing, but the Supreme Court has made rulings that leave property owners very vulnerable and I have read many posts on this blog describing blighted properties and underused property that would be prime for this type of action.

I am not promoting this type of action, I am simply asking the question about what our City leaders are willing to do and what our citizens are willing to accept in the name of growth and development.

What if one person, or just a handful of people refused to sell property needed for a new mall, or a school, or a road . . . ?

What if it was YOUR property, or your grandpa's?

Sorry...fingers quicker than brain. 14th.

I just checked the 12th Amendment.....the 12th Amendment is pertaining to elections and the electoral college !

I didn't see anything about eminent domain there.

Are we reading the same Constitution ???

It's the 12th you need to read. "nor shall any state..." The 5th is federal, 12th state.

I'm with DeeAnna. It was always intended to be used only in the matter of public safety and services, not so that some rich corporation or wealthy developer could take someone's family farm and put up a shopping mall or lay down a gas line.

Roads, powerlines, water, sewer...in other words, services that could benefit a community....,yes....rich developer being a bully trying to push people off their land because he always gets what he wants? NO

Concerning Eminent Domain ---

"...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
– 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

I think the key words here are..."just compensation."

There is becoming an alarming increase all across the country of Eminent Domain being abused.
People's property being seized to build more valuable properties, thereby increasing property taxes and revenue to the city,etc...so abuse of eminent domain is a danger.

Personally, I only believe in it when it is an absolute necessity for the safety or good of all.

I was really impressed with Erin, especially in this Council meeting. I wrote my comments about this under the "City Hall move" portion of this blog, but I really was happy that she requested more time and information before a vote was allowed on this issue. I got the feeling they were trying to get a fast vote on this one...and I am happy that Erin stood firm and got the extra time requested to ensure fairness and everything was done right.
Being able to watch those Council meetings on tv is really a great thing, because you can watch them over to catch things that may have been missed the first time.

I think Eminent Domain should be used as a last resort. I feel that if you are taking someone's property, they should have a large say in what they receive from the city.
On a related manor, I was kind of disappointed in a few of our council members who spoke at the meeting the other night about the Jackson Rd. issue and how the gentleman in question was upset over what he read in the paper about what people were saying. One of the council members said something to the effect of "I don't know if people were misquoted or what"...I can guarantee you I misquoted no one in my story and I applaud the three council members who present the night of the original meeting, especially Callis and McLerran, for their ability to stand up and ask the tough questions to make sure the people were getting a fair deal too. It's easy to blame the press when you're a public official but I can assure you, as long as I am here I will report the words of the meetings I attend because people have the right to know and I'm sorry if that hurts someone's feelings but if you're a city leader and you're that concerned about their feelings, perhaps either you or the person in question should have actually shown up for the meeting.