The
following letter was written and submitted to The New York Times is response
to an article dealing with Eminent Domain. The letter was never published by
the Times to our knowledge. We offer it here for your consideration. On August
15, 2008, we submitted the letter to Crain's
New York Business as a "Comment" to an On-Line Survey dealing
with Eminent Domain. We are not aware of its having been accepted by that organization
for inclusion on its Blog).
The New York
Times Company
229 West 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036
USA
Phone: (212)556-1873
Fax: 1-212-556-3690
To The Editor:
Re: Justices
Uphold Taking Property for Development (NYT front page June 24, 2005)
Take a look at U.S. Supreme Court SMITH v. ORGANIZATION OF FOSTER FAMILIES,
431 U.S. 816 (1977) 431 U.S. 816, which I believe is the case that gave us
what might be called the “in the best interest of the child” doctrine,
which was subsequently used by judges to end the parental rights of fit parents;
and by “fit parents” I mean parents who were actually judged to
be fit enough to be their own children’s’ parents by those very
judges who were about to be taking away their parental rights, in favor of
the new spouse of their former marriage partner who was judged to be better-off
financially for instance then the less successful parent; i.e. the one on
the wrong side (read: the poorer side) of the divorce.
If you are wondering why
I am talking about adoption and parental rights, watch carefully and you will
see the connection. If judges can justify the ending of the parental rights
of a fit parent, how much more so, a fortiori, should they be able to end
anyone’s rights to property, such as a home that has been in ones family
for generations, in favor of those who they may judge to be able to make a
use that would be, in their judgment, in the “best interest” of
the community at large.
The laws of our land are
becoming more-and-more a slippery slope on which any and all of us are subject
to being allowed to slide (read: be pushed) down into the tar pit of oblivion.
The rights of parents, protected under the Constitution, have been judged
to be subject to whatever a judge interprets to be in the “best interest”
of one’s child. Now, with this latest Supreme Court ruling, the rights
of property owners are limited to whatever a judge may deem to be in the “best
interest” of a community and that judge can have that property seized
and given over to another person, or even to a non-person, in the case of
corporations.
What’s next? Next,
judges are going to tell us who of us are to have babies with which partner
and who will be raising those children in what houses (no sense calling them
homes any more) so the best interest of the state can be served.
Sound familiar? I am not
surprised. I am furious. Or is it Fuhrer-ious?
Drew Kopf
Plainview, N.Y.
June 25, 2005
Return
to Writtings
