According to the Constitution a citizen has the right to do with legally owned property anything within “reason”. Property can be sold, purchased, traded, and given away. The “within reason” is determined by laws in effect to protect other citizens from unreasonable use by the owner. “Unreasonable” quite often must be established by argument and a decision rendered by judgment. That is what makes a country like ours unique. Merely compare our system with nations where the Government owns everything and robs the citizens of reasons to do better by eliminating the right to making property decisions. The question in Hobson was about the physical condition of the buildings determined to be historical…could they be safe as accommodations? Practiced eyes said ”No” while amateurs insisted “Yes” and sued to stop demolition by accusing the city of discrimination. We believe part of the judgment was that the owners wanted taxpayers to foot the bill for restoration and pay nothing themselves. And perhaps the “historical factor” was never really a serious part of the discussion? Case closed but arguments never die.
No comments:
Post a Comment