Eminent domain, in theory, should be a great practice but in reality is wrong. It is wrong because the government acts like a business and seeks to gain land with the cheapest expense, rather than how the 5th amendment describes how the compensation should be-- just. The government tries to take advantage of those who are uneducated and don't know their rights. They do this by giving them a price that is way too low for the value of the land and these people think they just have to accept it. An example of this is Source F. Source F talks about how once upon a time, this city, Canal Winchester, Ohio, offered a farmer $9,249 for strip of his property. The farmer thought this was too low and unfair so he took it to court. In court, the jury decided that the city should pay the farmer $595,625. If this man didn't know his right to just compensation then the government would've been able to seize his land for way cheaper than actually valued. The government saying that they offer a just value for the property is an obvious example of empty rhetoric and they just want to take advantage of the under-educated. Another way government acts unethically when practicing eminent domain is when they try to satisfy their ideals of corporatism. An example of this today is the example in the video we watched in class. How the government took a whole neighborhood and they were going to sell the land to a company to turn it into a resort. To make things even worse, the land wasn't even used and is just a big lot of tall grass. The way the government acts is sickening. I'll believe the government is working for the people and the benefit of society in their usage of eminent domain the day I see pink elephants. There is another issue that is posed by eminent domain:"what is fair and just compensation?" Everyone can think that they are correct with their valuations, but there are many factors. A house to one person has more value than a monetary integer. They have memories and it is their home, not just a building, while to the government it is worth as much as the property and the land it is sitting on. So who really knows? I guess if Jesus came down to settle this he would be able to figure out a perfect, just compensation.
This week in class we read a piece called Show and Tell by Scott McCloud. This piece showed (and told) the importance of pictures in readings. It started off with a short anecdote of this kid in front of his class explaining how his robot toy transforms into an airplane. He uses a mixture of words and plain showing how it does what it does. This develops the author's main argument that "words and pictures have great powers to tell stories when creators fully exploit them both," (McCloud 809). I believe that images in books don't make a work of literature any less intellectual. If the content is meant to be intellectual, pictures aren't going to make it any less. Actually, images bring a different dynamic and can allow for more intellectual content. If an author were to include a statement where there could be many interpretations, that would be considered intellectual, but if you add an image to that and turn it into a comic, there could be an infinite amount of i...
I agree with your viewpoint. Government acts like a business, thus, it has no incentive to buy out property at the just price. And corporatism just makes matters worse and land can be bought but never used or at least not used in the intended manner.
ReplyDelete