Bad Links?

Other glitches?

Notify Webmaster

What our Readers Are Saying

Letters to the Editor

Court damages all our property rights

It had been my intention to write about a different subject but, based on a recent event in Washington, D.C., I think it is much more timely and important for me to go on record with you.

I am referring to the ridiculous Supreme Court decision handed down last week that does serious damage to our concept of private property. I think most of you know, but for those who don't, I'm referring to the 5-4 Supreme Court ruling that government could condemn private property for private use.

Government has always had the power to condemn private property for public use such as a publicly-owned bridge or highway.

But government has never had the power to condemn (seize, take away) your property to allow someone else to use it for their own private purposes.

In this court case, the city of New London, Conn., wanted to see a private development take place where some private citizens had their homes. The private citizens did not want to sell or move.

The city decided that, because the city could get some more tax dollars, that these people should be forced to sell and move.

The Supreme Court ruled, in a liberal-conservative split, that they could be forced to sell and move.

I think that this ruling makes a mockery of private property in our country. It is a reversion to the days when those who had the most power made the rules. It undermines our way of life, system of government and our Constitution.

This ruling was favored and supported by the National League of Cities and by those who believe that maximizing tax dollars is the purpose of government.

I do not believe that. There are also those, including some local political people, who would tell you that, after this ruling, it would be ILLEGAL for them NOT to seize your property if the opportunity presented itself. That also is nonsense.

Regardless of this ruling, it will still take a decision on the part of a government to make this happen. I will never support that.

In this office, or in any other office that I might serve in, I will never vote to seize your property or other private property for private purposes.

Peter Pfeifer

Fayette County Commission, Third District

Peachtree City, Ga.

Mayoral candidate appalled by ruling

Last week the United States Supreme Court made one of the gravest errors in the illustrious history of our great nation.

Effectively, the opinion of the Supreme Court states that local governments can seize private property when circumstances deem it beneficial to the public good. The operative word here is beneficial.

As a private property owner in Peachtree City, and candidate for mayor, I am appalled by the opinion of our nation's highest court.

There are circumstances in which eminent domain procedures are necessary, but they are rare and should not be predicated on the benefit to private companies at the demise of private property owners.

It is the ability of citizens to acquire property that invests them in the community and builds an economic foundation that brings stability and prosperity.

The great minds that founded our country all agreed that property ownership was a "natural right" of man.

In an original draft of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson makes reference to the evils of government interference in private property matters by attacking the property confiscation methods of King George III of England.

Samuel Adams wrote in 1772, "Among the natural rights of colonists are these first: a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property, together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can."

Both Adams and Jefferson understood the importance of property ownership as a pillar of any "free" society.

It gives citizens the ability to have ownership of their own lives, just as John Locke had proposed when he penned the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of property."

Happiness may have been substituted for property in the final version of the Declaration of Independence, but for this citizen happiness lies in being able to own property without the fear of government confiscation due to any perceived benefit to private interest.

Harold Logsdon

Candidate for mayor

Peachtree City, Ga.

Forgiveness is given, but consequences still remain for church theft

I am proud to be a member of the Flat Creek Baptist Church family. There is no other church in Fayetteville that is more loving, giving, or forgiving because our pastor, Brother Bill Priester, has instilled these qualities by personal example and through sound biblical preaching.

One person does not reflect the attitude of the whole church; however, I know that I speak for many of us who take exception to the harsh letter criticizing the entire church body.

You seemed rather concerned about the church's witness to non-believers because Ms. Trudewind was brought up on charges. How does it reflect on all Christians when one believer criticizes another in public forum?

The author of the previous letter seems to buy into the modern-day philosophy that we are not responsible for our own actions.

However, at no time has the person involved in this criminal action come before the church asking for forgiveness or offered to make restitution. She confessed only when confronted.

If this person had committed murder, would you suggest we handle that "in the church" as well?

Yes, Jesus does require us to forgive and we will offer forgiveness even if she never asks for it. However, she must face the consequences of her actions.

Her actions were criminal and so the police were involved.

A wise man once told me that the world does not judge you by what happens to you, but by how you react to what happens to you. I'm certain that the community will not judge Flat Creek Baptist Church by what has happened but rather by how they react to it.

Most members, although saddened by the lapse in integrity and poor judgment shown by this woman, will continue to love her and forgive her, just as Jesus would do.

Sue Lovelady

Fayetteville, Ga.

'Outs' still not feeling the love of Mayor Brown

As a citizen of Peachtree City and Fayette County I was truly pleased to read that Steve Brown "loves" me.

I was, to say the least, confused and concerned about how Mayor Brown felt about me, a citizen.

My confusion and concern comes about by the fact that in the past when I have questioned some of Mayor Brown's and the City Council's decisions: for example, spending $850,000 for property to anchor a bridge from Wynnmeade to Line Creek, or the decision to install an assistant city manager with a salary of $105,000, at a time when we were in a fiscal crises.

I was called a member of the "outs." When some of us questioned the attacks the mayor consistently made on former members of the city staff or previous council, we were named the "government in exile." When some of us (citizens that is) questioned other decisions, we were lumped together as the "old guard."

So, I wasn't really "feeling the love" that Mayor Brown has for me. I am sure former Mayor Bob Lenox, Tom Farr's family members, the former Development Authority, former City Council members, and many others who "dared" to speak out aren't "feeling the love" either, although they are all PTC citizens.

And I seemed to have missed the "robust debate" that Mayor Brown so dearly "enjoys." It was more a "slash and trash" campaign he seems to love.

Of course it is hard to have "robust debate" when so many write anonymously in the "free speech" section.

I am amused by all the supporters of Brown. I don't seem to find them anywhere but in that anonymous section.

If you truly like the job he is doing, how about signing your letter, then we can actually engage in "robust debate."

The constant accusations and allegations levied in an anonymous manner are destructive, disgusting, and downright cowardly.

And to the "free speecher" who stated that Brown was never "totally against annexation," you are partially right.

In fact he was against annexation being done by the City Council. He only supported annexation by vote of the entire city.

But don't take my word for it, here is a direct quote from Steve Brown's 2001 campaign Web site:

"The bottom line on annexation: Council Members can be swayed by special interests. I want to give the power of annexation to the citizens. I want to change the charter so that all annexation requests must be voted on by referendum at the next scheduled general election. If the people want the annexation, they will vote for it."

Wonder what happened to that "promise?" I guess Brown and "his City Council" are immune to "special interests."

Jim Stinson

Peachtree City, Ga.

Wieland rezoning still making waves in Tyrone: Questions for mayor

Looking for some entertainment, I attended the Tyrone Council meeting last Thursday evening. I was not disappointed.

During my allotted five minutes of public comments (Councilman Mike Smola contested this once and was wrong), I asked the mayor several questions which she refused to answer.

She did however angrily state that if I would write them in a letter, she would answer them. Here is your letter, Sheryl; please reply