Considering eminent domain

I cannot believe your inconsistency in reporting news of real substance for your readers. For some time, the Downtown Dothan Redevelopment Authority has been threatening to use the city of Dothan’s power of eminent domain to do what it calls development or improvement.

Personally, I don’t believe there is the least bit of constitutional legality in utilizing such power for “improvement.” Now, when an unquestionably legitimate justification for exercising the power of eminent domain comes along (the toll road concept), you headline a very beneficial improvement as bringing “fears” because of such power.

You know that without this power, no road, railroad or canal could be built if a few people choose to stop it. These public uses were the intent of the founding fathers, not beautification programs that are beneficial to a few. Please get your obligation to what is right and wrong, constitutional and unconstitutional, ingrained in your news reporters.

I’m sure you’ll want to bring up ruling of the Supreme Court, but we don’t let our brains accept unconstitutional pollution just because a few Supreme Court judges have lost their way. The proposed toll road project reflects the basic intent of the power of eminent domain, whereas local improvement for beautification or tax-based improvements are not constitutional justification for exercising such power.

In short, your headline that a 100-mile project “brings fears of eminent domain” and your lack of reporting that an urban renewal program threatens private property rights doesn’t meet the common sense test.

Gerald Crowley
Dothan