07 April 2005
Assault on Property Rights in SD - UPDATE
Continued commentary on D.R.A. Lawsuit
UPDATE: Argus with More Details on Arguments Before SD Supremes
The Chief tardily found some coverage in the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader Loser from 3/24 that adds some additional detail not noted (but partially inferred) in my earlier post on this case, and in the coverage of the Moody County Enterprise. Unfortunately the added information does nothing to mitigate the concerns expressed in the above entry, which was originally posted by the Chief on the 6th inspired by the front page coverage of the Moody County Enterprise.
For example, this dialog before the court was reported:
Chief Justice David Gilbertson raised the question of practicality. "Where do you draw the line? Say they just wanted to build a garage, rather than a dairy farm. Can the neighbors force a county-wide vote for a garage?" he asked Abourezk.
"I think so," Abourezk said.
"Doesn't that invite chaos?" Gilbertson said.
"I don't think you have to draw the line. I think it takes care of itself. It's a pragmatic decision," Abourezk said. "Basically it would be too expensive ... unless something really concerns the citizens."
OK. My example on garage construction was NOT far out. Even more alarming, and downright subversive is Abourezk's statement that whether or not such votes were taken would be "a pragmatic decision...Basically it would be too expensive ... unless something really concerns the citizens." That would appear to mean, that someone, or a group of someones would decide when someone elses' activities were worthy of a vote - based on "a pragmatic decision" - which would inevitably be based on some arbitrary personal preference of an individual or group, thereby effectively imposing a system of a "collective will". This then would become supreme, and the concept of private property rights would be seriously abrogated. Of course if one is pursuing a "social democratic" socialist philosophy, this is all well and good to you. If you are a believer in some fundamental American-style principles, like the right to property, this can't be a good thing.
Another interesting question occurs to the Chief concerning this: Why is it that a 750,000 hen egg-laying "factory" making a larger "footprint" on the ground than a dairy operation is unworthy of scrutiny by DRA, but these dairies are something to really worry about? Does DRA like eggs better than beef? Maybe being a "chicken" instead of being "bullish" this case as well as regards foriegn affairs is more politically correct or something. (OK - don't tell me - I KNOW it's not bulls in a dairy, but it IS true that if there are no bulls there won't be any cows to milk.)
UPDATE: Argus with More Details on Arguments Before SD Supremes
The Chief tardily found some coverage in the Sioux Falls Argus-
For example, this dialog before the court was reported:
Chief Justice David Gilbertson raised the question of practicality. "Where do you draw the line? Say they just wanted to build a garage, rather than a dairy farm. Can the neighbors force a county-wide vote for a garage?" he asked Abourezk.
"I think so," Abourezk said.
"Doesn't that invite chaos?" Gilbertson said.
"I don't think you have to draw the line. I think it takes care of itself. It's a pragmatic decision," Abourezk said. "Basically it would be too expensive ... unless something really concerns the citizens."
OK. My example on garage construction was NOT far out. Even more alarming, and downright subversive is Abourezk's statement that whether or not such votes were taken would be "a pragmatic decision...Basically it would be too expensive ... unless something really concerns the citizens." That would appear to mean, that someone, or a group of someones would decide when someone elses' activities were worthy of a vote - based on "a pragmatic decision" - which would inevitably be based on some arbitrary personal preference of an individual or group, thereby effectively imposing a system of a "collective will". This then would become supreme, and the concept of private property rights would be seriously abrogated. Of course if one is pursuing a "
Another interesting question occurs to the Chief concerning this: Why is it that a 750,000 hen egg-laying "factory" making a larger "footprint" on the ground than a dairy operation is unworthy of scrutiny by DRA, but these dairies are something to really worry about? Does DRA like eggs better than beef? Maybe being a "chicken" instead of being "bullish" this case as well as regards foriegn affairs is more politically correct or something. (OK - don't tell me - I KNOW it's not bulls in a dairy, but it IS true that if there are no bulls there won't be any cows to milk.)
