Replies

1. I am not involved in the exchanges between montag813 and Sloth on this particular thread.

2. Mrs. Hidge can do whatever she wants to do with HER property, as far as I'm concerned, and live with her decision.

3. I do not live in Duncanville, Texas, so I really don't know squat about the situation, or who is being honest and who is lying.

4. My initial reaction was to jump to conclusions after reading the article, and blast Mr. Cagle. I should know by now that every dispute has two sides, and it is unwise to choose sides before hearing from both parties.

5. I should also know that many "reporters" have missed their calling, and should be writing strictly fiction since they have a hard time getting their facts straight.

Your initial reaction to blast Cagle was the correct one. If you look at his response, none of it has a firm legal basis making it all the more silly to see him advise Mrs. Hodge to seek counsel.

For all we know Cagle may have had that 4-lane road placed in front of Mrs. Hodge to squeeze her decision.

As you can infer from my position I don't take kindly to government employees that think they are a law unto themselves. I have had numerous experiences where I have reprimanded city staff for construing policy as law. Policy is not law, and many government underlings have difficulty separating the two.

The bottomline is that cavalier government employees get their jurisdictions into unnecessary trouble and legal expense over matters that can be solved in one closed door meeting. In case you haven't noticed, most government employees and their legal departments are not the brightest bulbs in the cabinet. They are frequently wasteful and insensitive to the public.

As I said, I hope the court hands Mr. Cagle's balls to him. He needs to be dressed down, possibly fired.

My initial reaction was to jump to conclusions after reading the article, and blast Mr. Cagle. I should know by now that every dispute has two sides, and it is unwise to choose sides before hearing from both parties.

Nothing in Cagle's attempt to wriggle out of the obloquy that has deservedly falled upon his head addresses the issue, which is that he is attempting to abuse the concept of "eminent domain" (which, as a matter of Constitutional law, is limited to "public use") for private gain.