O'Hara residents demand council stop church from developing field

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ^ | Wednesday, July 10, 2002 | Michael J. Dongilli

[Willie Green]

O'Hara council is up to bat in the battle over St. Mary's field, whether members care to be or not.

Residents who want public use of the field, which is owned by St. Mary Parish, implored council last week to use any means necessary, including eminent domain, to stop the parish from using the longtime baseball field for a mausoleum.

[Willie Green]

It's Church property.
The parish was kind enough to let local children use it for a ballfield until abuse of our legal system made liability insurance too costly.
Now government is threatening to seize the land to forcefully provide a ballfield rather than permitting legitimate extension of the parish cemetary.

[concerned about politics]

It's Church property.

Yep. The church was nice to the locals for years, and look where it got 'em.
This is another attempt at a government land grab.
If I were the church, I'd have someone burried there ASAP, or plant trees or something while they still own it.

[Free the USA]

Index Bump and fyi

[concerned about politics]

CONT"D.....

Plant fruit trees to feed the poor families at the church. Who can argue with that? Certainly not a politician who "cares for the less fotunate."

[Protagoras]

Sounds like an internal family squabble to me, and not part of any wider issue.

My opinion is that the misuse of eminient domain and the assault on private property is a very wide issue.

[Gaston]

The residents only care about their property values. Living near a ballfield is worth more than living near a cemetery.

[Willie Green]

Living near a ballfield is worth more than living near a cemetery.

The cemetary has also existed for many, many years.
That is why the expansion is necessary.
It is ALL church property.

[BlackElk]

This is a conservative website.

The Church owns the lot in question.

Ther government claims the power to condemn property and (under)pay the owners for public purposes.

Conservatives ought not to imagine that neighborhood baseball parks are such a public purpose as involves a right to condemn property forcibly removing it from its legitimate owner (even the village atheist) for the purpose of parks and recreation.

If the power to tax is the power to destroy, so is the power of eminent domain, particularly when, as here, it is misused for expedient political purposes.

[Kay Ludlow]

Emminent Domain is the wider issue. I think Pittsburgh in particular has made broad use of that power. I know that there are local governments in PA that lobby the state (and urge their local NIMBY's too) to give them broader powers to protect "open space" regardless of ownership, zoning, or anything else. These elected and staff officials believe the definition of our form of government is that if someone complains, government should be able to fix the "problem".

I personally hold more to the constitutional position that if you don't like what your neighbor is doing, you're free to speak out to them AND free to move! We don't have assigned housing here in the US, where you have to live where the government tells you to...

[Protagoras]

I agree totally, we are in the minority, even on this forum.

[Kay Ludlow]

And is that because people really don't care about the implications of government owning the means of production (land), or because the don't understand those implications - control of the means of production gives the government complete control of the economy. They've already got local governments doing 5-year "Comprehensive Plans" - isn't that reminiscent of the Soviets?