Yes thereis some background missing; this is a follow-up article on previous reporting. Whatever the case, the inept use of eminent domain is clear. After Lundgren was declared owner of the property, Palin just used eminent domain to take it from him. That’s not in dispute and I can’t believe anyone HERE would defend that.
“Note that Lundgren is a major industrial developer, not just a regular private individual.”
Does this mean that he has fewer property rights than a regular Joe? Are you implying that we should be less concerned about Lundgren’s land being taken by the government because he’s rich?
When did this become Socialist Republic? Seriously. I’m on another thread arguing with someone because I refuse to respect Hillary Clinton. Get me a tinfoil hat because I’m starting to think there’s a conspiracy here. With all due respect to fellow Freepers, this is getting out of hand.
“Are you implying that we should be less concerned about Lundgren’s land being taken by the government because he’s rich?”
No I’m not implying that (I knew you would say this). Of course the principle of private ownership is fundamental and universal.
But there is not enough information about this case in the article. Knowing the facts is essential. Especially when a bright new conservative comes on the scene with the potential to start her own version of a Reagan revolution—I expect dirt digging, mud slinging and garbage throwing.
That’s what this is until you give me enough facts.