We know it's not a RKBA issue. Nobody said it was.
Nowhere is there an indication that the city tried to negotiate or pay for an easement. They just took it. If I decided I wanted to use your property, your private road, to get to part of my adjacent property, and I had no easement or my easement was insufficient, do you think you would just let me do whatever I wanted and use your road or drive across your property without some sort of financial compensation and your approval? What if I had five kids and ten grand kids (teenagers) all with cars, driving back and forth constantly on your road or across your property? Ya' think you might want some compensation for maintenance and usage? Ya' think I might be trespassing, repeatedly and egregiously, if I did so without your approval?
Yeah, the people need municipal infrastructure as you say, but let them pay private landowners for it when it's needed.
Your Marxist "for the greater good" BS is just that - more Marxist drivel. I don't know how you can consider yourself a conservative or a member of a "free" republic and think the government takes supremacy over something as fundamental as private property ownership rights.
--We know it's not a RKBA issue. Nobody said it was.--
ClearCase did.
--Your Marxist "for the greater good" BS is just that - more Marxist drivel. I don't know how you can consider yourself a conservative or a member of a "free" republic and think the government takes supremacy over something as fundamental as private property ownership rights.--
Conservatives believe in establishing governments in order to provide for a better community and to protect property rights using laws established by their elected representatives. Anarchists believe is shooting those that try to enforce the laws.
How much did Mr. Watson respect the city's rights to their property (the existing sewer main, for which they had a proper easement)?