Fellow ranter Chuck returns with the following:

I find myself pondering what I consider the role of government to be more and more these days – but that could just be part of the aging process (what I am starting to characterize as my ‘loss of apathy’). After reading the article linked below, and sifting through the verbiage to separate the facts from the spin, I don’t find an answer to what I consider the some of the primary questions – although I do like the Godzilla reference…

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45264

Why does the city of Maplewood feel the need to develop part of this area?
Were the residents/business owners of the area consulted in any way?

I guess my major problem with this whole issue is the relationship between the municipality and a property owner. Property owners have been trying to do things with property that cities/towns/villages have not permitted for years – but the owner would submit a plan/proposal to the authority for approval, pay the permit fee (assuming the proposal was acceptable, met zoning ordinances, building codes, etc.) and proceed with their plan. This whole idea that a public entity could essentially transfer property ownership between private individuals or organizations is not only a role I don’t consider appropriate for OUR government, taken to a logical extreme it calls into question what the word ‘owner’ means.

(I didn’t think I was ‘ranting’ the first time, but I’m starting to pick up steam now)

I like to think if I ‘own’ something one of the things I have a measure of control over is not only who to sell to, but if I even WANT to sell. When I can’t ‘just say no’ where do you go from there? In many ways it seems like the assessed value of a property is a price tag with the county clerk acting like the cashier…

Where you’ve had a recent history of beginning with questions, I’ll end with one.

Is the primary role of government to promote the public good or protect individual rights?