then the houseguests start appropriating everything of value in the neighborhood. they start spreading lies and gossip to take more and use 2nd grade logic to argue that everything done is fair. and when your impoverished neighbors get hungry and desperate enough to try “jumping the fence” the houseguests sit behind kryptonite bars while they order you to take care of the problem they created, and quietly (or brazenly) take more of your land for themselves.

would that be ok?

arguing that if you don’t sell now you’ll lose your land to eminent domain only gives more power to the powerful. all the benefits that trickle down to others is just that, a trickle. one point that addresses this approach is the idea that once the powerful have finished obliterating these people’s rights, what’s to stop them from doing the same to yours? you sit silent while good people are hurting, “the only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing”.

and the defeatist position of bowing to the inevitable is so lacking in dignity and character that i could never support such a sad position.

"Friday, U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen issued a stinging 32-page Memorandum Opinion and Order, ruling that "Dr. Tamez correctly asserts that negotiations are a prerequisite to the exercise of eminent domain," and that DHS had presented "insufficient evidence as to whether there has been bona fide efforts to negotiate."

read the full story here; and here’s another if anyone’s interested.