|
Not For Sale! There are alternatives to the proposed land acquisition that would allow those who want to sell to go and those who want to stay, to remain. There is no such thing as a "fair price" for something that isn't for sale.
Intent? Is the government's use of eminent domain to take property for non-critical projects when there are clear alternatives to forced land acquisition appropriate? Government seizure of property from people not willing to part with it is not respect for property rights no matter what the government might pay. Does anyone really think the founding fathers had a concept of government "parks?" Did our founding fathers, many of who were agrarian landowners, mean to sanction these massive home and land takings to "preserve scenery" in the name of the "public good?" It's more likely that they assumed that the government would be restricted to activities it is authorized and mandated to do in the Constitution, and nothing else.
U.S. Constitutional Rights: As yet another example of government's attitude and behavior in this case, landowners have been informed that they shall only be compensated for the physical value of their land and homes. Yet, this same property is taken seized in the name of its "scenic" value! Amendment V of the Constitution of the United States includes the phrase that:
"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
West Virginia Constitutional Rights: The West Virginia Constitution states that:
"nor shall private property be taken for public use or damaged without just compensation."
What is happening in the case of the People of the New River clearly violates this fundamental principle of governance of our state.
Circumventing the Law? According to Federal law the Park Service almost always has to grant as a minimum life tenancy, but in the case of the New River Parkway it appears the state is buying the land, to circumvent this law? Could then the property be turned over to the National Park Service free and clear?
Why do we need another big government program when a smaller program can accomplish the same economic benefit for the area? We've got a better idea: More responsible scope for projects such as the New River Parkway. Don't we need to keep as much land as possible in the hands of private individuals AND as much money in our wallets as possible?
About scenic or conservation easements: Scenic easements can allow a landowner to live within the bounds of a scenic area, such as a National Park, but require the landowner to maintain and repair his/her property in a manner that blends in with the surrounding area. This could be an alternative to the current New River Parkway Plan, but in many cases scenic easements strip or eliminate property rights of landowners, so they must be accepted and applied with great scrutiny so as not to be abusive of individual rights. For more information, see Danger of Easements .
Why is it that the government is not offering to compensate willing landowners for the full physical and scenic value of their property? It is intolerable that they are forcing people out of their homes and off their private land, but in addition they are not providing full value for the land being acquired (stolen).
An informative web site on land rights is: Know Your Land Rights .
Make a Stand For Your Property Rights!
Private property is the foundation of our freedom and the fountainhead of our prosperity.
We are allowing our government to strip our children of both! It must stop!
Government-owned land pays no property tax that supports our schools, thereby adversely affecting the very quality of our children's education.
"But your land is in the view shed," the National Park Service says. Where does the "view shed" in the New River Gorge or other areas end with the NPS?
As long as the land is in America, we, the people, have a sovereign right to the ownership of private property, access to our public lands, scrutiny of our tax dollars and an obligation to protect our own natural resources, our freedom and our prosperity.
For any agency, person, politician to ever think an American citizen should accept their ongoing rhetoric used to strip us of any of the aforementioned, is reprehensible, or should be, to a free society.
Is there such a thing as a willing seller? We're not so sure.
