On the recordDecember 13, 2007
I believe the taking of a person's wealth--and you and I in farm and ranch company know the assets of a farmer and rancher are tied in the land. It is their bank. It is their savings. It is their retirement. Some even like to pass it down generationally. To have a municipality flex a new muscle that grew out of a decision at the Supreme Court level because of an entity in Connecticut using it is ominous and needs to have powerful teeth in it to say to that local municipality or county: Thou shalt not, for these very narrow purposes, use eminent domain. I am saying you and I come from farm country. We know how valuable that land is. It is that farmer's or that rancher's savings. It is their retirement, should they choose to sell it, and they can sell it to the city for a park if they want to. But for a county or city to step in and take the land when you want to hand it to your daughter or your son or your grandson, generationally, to pass it down through for agricultural purposes--there ought to be teeth, very powerful teeth. I think counties and cities ought not be allowed to do it, period.
Source
govinfo.gov




