10/21/2006: "A Response To Bill Weissinger's Column."

Let me see if I can understand the underlying logic. Mr. Weissinger supports the notion that "we can't just take what we want from the environment, wherever we want it, whenever we want it." But in opposition to Initiative 933, he indicates full concurrence with the notion that "we" (state and local governments) can take what we want from private property owners without compensation.

One would think that that a Chicago Law School honors graduate would have caught this glaring inconsistency in logic. One would also think that a practicing lawyer might be possessed of greater deference to our Constitution's succinctly worded Fifth Amendment: "Private property shall not be taken for a public use, without just compensation."

The implications are profound. For Mr. Weissinger, the supposed preservation of the environment (however ill defined this might be) is so important that it merits a status superior to mere property owners and in particular, their constitutionally protected rights.

As to reported costs associated with Initiative 933, one needs to keep in mind that as things presently stand, property owners have been compelled to bear these costs, and that government will occasion no expense that has not first been coerced from property owners. And even more profound, the initiative says that costs can be avoided altogether simply by not taking these valuable rights in the first place.

Albert Hall
Friday Harbor