Matt stop it!
Feb 13th, 2009 by David Anderson
I like Lt. Gov. Matt Denn. He strikes me as an honest, dedicated public servant and if you ever seen him with his children, you know he is a wonderful father. So this is not personal, it is just about policy. It scares me that he may be the future of the Democrat party if we don’t pay attention.
Did you notice Denn’s opposition to Senate Bill 7, the eminent domain restrictions? He said that in these times we have to have government being able to do what ever was necessary to get growth going again. In combination with his inaugural address where he blasted Reaganism as the root of our economic problems, I am getting a very scary picture.
The man doesn’t seem to believe that economy is the measure of individuals and their choices. He believes that it is a system dictated from above. It is a zero sum gain. That type of stagnent thinking has destroyed nations. If we don’t stop it in the bud, it will destroy this state.
Don’t be surprised when you see me keeping tabs on the LG. You had better do the same.
If David is scared, Matt must be doing something right.
I don’t have the text of his speech, but Reaganism is in fact the root of our current troubles. Reagan’s policies were correct for the first two years of his administration; after that it was all downhill to our present disaster. I will give Reagan credit where credit is due, but no more.
Reagan provided a useful shock to the system but his policies were not appropriate beyond the initial shock. Even Reagan admitted as much by raising taxes and giving up on the balanced budget in 1983. It is to Reagan’s shame that he did not admit the failure of his economic plan – which laid the groundwork for the persistent economic myths (propaganda, really, at this point) that underpinned the Bush administration and all the Republican Congresses.
noman, so you oppose Senate Bill 7?
Are you implying Matt Denn is opposed to SB7? Good, I didn’t think so.
The short answer is yes, I support SB7 because I think eminent domain needs to be reined in in Delaware especially. I think the language of the bill goes too far and we may regret it at some point, but that can always be corrected later.
I would rather keep the eminent domain powers and have them used wisely and fairly. But if wisdom and fairness is not possible then we need SB7 or something like it.
I am implying it, Noman.
From the Delaware State News:http://www.newszapforums.com/forum60/77489.html
Eminent domain bill wins approval by Senate
Measure restricts land-grabbing power by government
By Leah Burcat
Delaware State News
DOVER — A piece of legislation that strengthens property owners’ rights will move on to step two following a rather anticlimactic approval on Tuesday in the State Senate.
Senate Bill 7, often referred to as the eminent domain bill, makes it more difficult for the government to use its land-grabbing power.
The government would only be able to condemn and acquire private land with the intent of turning it over to private developers for economic development purposes if the property is blighted or a hazard to public safety and health.
If property owners challenged the move, the burden of proving the conditions would fall on the government.
A similar bill was vetoed by former Gov. Ruth Ann Minner last year.
Tuesday’s vote came after a call from Lt. Gov. Matthew P. Denn and several labor and business leaders called upon the Senate to proceed cautiously on the legislation.
They worried that the bill would hamper the state’s economic development abilities.
“Passage of the wrong bill at this time could put us at a huge disadvantage” in trying to recover from the recession, Lt. Gov. Denn said on Monday.
David, you are misrepresenting Denn’s position. Denn had reservations and suggested changes in the bill, but he did not oppose it, in fact he stated that in the unlikely event his vote was needed he would vote for it as written.
Ok, he doesn’t oppose it. He wants to gut it so that it is meaningless window dressing. Close enough. I apologize to the Honorable Mathew Denn for the confusion. Let’s be fair and accurate here.
So your complaint about Denn is reduced to “He’s not a yes man?”
Cool.
“The man doesn’t seem to believe that economy is the measure of individuals and their choices. He believes that it is a system dictated from above. ”
Is this another one of those vague right wing conservative ideological utterances that have no real meaning – sort of like “get our government out of our way”?
Don’t be scared. It’s only democracy.
Democracy has no ability to override my fundamental right to property and legal economic participation.
Of course it does. That’s why eminent domain powers are in the Constitution.
My last comment before I have to go off and exercise my economic rights. It does not. Eminent domain is for the public good and the public has to compensate me fairly. It is not designed to override my rights and choose another person over me based upon a democratic vote. All of us should be equal in our right to participate in the economy. That was one of the sinister aspects to segregation. The majority knew that the best way to keep chains of oppression on the minority is to use democracy to interfere with their individual right of economic sovereignty.
Sorry but your rights are not absolute. Not if they interfere with my rights to clean air and water, not to mention my rights as a taxpayer. Both rightie and leftie blogs are wallowing in ignorance over this issue, especially as it applies to the situation in Wilmington. The development along Wilmington’s riverfront has led to the city’s solvency — ask all the long-suffering taxpayers there (including businesses) if they want to go back to chronic tax hikes. No one is planning to or has “taken” anything without the fair compensation required by the 5th Amendment. Delaware has been much more conservative and cautious in its use of this process than most other states.
Wrong, it is not being more conservative than most states. Most states don’t practice this extreme proposal. It is more conservative than some states and that would have changed. I have no problem with private individuals coming to agreement. That is what has developed the Wilmington Riverfront. Unused or unprofitable land was put into better use.
As to your assumption that taxpayer would be better off, that is a myth. The taxpayers would take on loads of debt to enrich campaign contributors while stepping on the rights of others. You may consider that Democracy or say rights aren’t absolute, but I consider it an injustice.
Rights are absolute or they don’t exist. Other rights come into conflict sometimes and we have to find ways to accommodate both. You are not accommodating anyone’s rights here. That is why this is clearly wrong.
The development can still go on, but it will have to proceed the time honored way of everyone being equal.
“That’s why eminent domain powers are in the Constitution.”
But only for ‘public use.’ For two-hundred years, ‘public use’ was construed to mean highways, libraries, schools, etc. In ‘Kelo,’ the decision that precipitated eminent domain legislation in various states, the Supreme Court ruled that projected increases in city tax revenue through the taking of private property and a subsequent sale to another private owner for development, constitutes ‘public use.’ To me, the ruling has a flaw that is similar to a break in the chain of custody. The ‘public use,’ (increased tax revenue which may never be realized) occurs not directly after the taking, but rather after the property has been re-distributed to another private owner (a pharmacutical concern that promised to build an office and condo project). Thus, the eminent domain was not for ‘public use,’ but for facilitating the resale of real property. To me, this was inconsistant with the traditional interpretation of the ‘takings clause.’