Man[goes] to Government (Puzzle Paragraph 1)

The extents of eminent domain are very controversial. Though, they have been mentioned in the US Constitution, the profiling is very ambiguous: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The whole policy, in itself, is not outrageous. It could in fact be beneficial. For example, fire stations need to be placed in a certain range to effective. However, the ambiguity of the eminent domain constraints have been misused by the government in the pursuit of corporatism, backstabbing the people. It has allowed big businesses cheap property with almost no liability. The government makes some verisimilitude of "public use" with promises of economic growth against the citizens' worry over the destruction of schools and numerous homes, like in the case of Detroit in 1981. While others might say that the condemnation of land for economic growth is a form of "public use," private land is "PRIVATE." Private firms have no liability to continue operating, and this has happened in many situations: Pfizer in New London, Chevrolet in Detroit, etc. A casino brings brings pleasure to the community reducing stress, so that is also of public property. NO! Property for "public use" is controlled by the government, and so such should be the case with property on the condemned land, or firm should be in the grip of the government. For instance, public utility companies are natural monopolies that earn most of their revenue through the government (taxes). I am not saying we should start marching on government offices with sticks and knives, nor am I saying that we should carry out Gandhi-like protests. We should also not each act like a Lone Ranger, targeting each and every small case where eminent domain was utilized unfairly. But, instead, the it should be dealt nationally. "Public use" and "proper compensation" need to be defined free of the Constitution's ambiguity.

THE END