by Pat Pending

There are many ways the city could work on a voluntary, cooperative basis with the rightful owner of the property. For example, it could negotiate to buy the bridge from its owner as any of us would negotiate to buy a piece of property we want. Or, it could leave the bridge to be developed by the private developer and simply develop the park up to the bridge's entrance. But why work in a cooperative manner with the rightful owner of the property when you can use the power of eminent domain to steal it?

The power of eminent domain is being abused more and more today. That power should be constrained to situations such as the building of highways, where a recalcitrant land owner could prevent the highway from being built. This is not that type of a situation. Here, we are talking about a park, not a major thoroughfare. The city can proceed with its park along the river whether or not it owns the railroad bridge. In fact, leaving the bridge in private hands would make it much more likely that it would be developed in a sensible, profitable manner.

It is not hard to imagine that the city will use the power of eminent domain to steal the bridge and then turn around and use taxpayer money to subsidize a private business to build shops along the bridge -- first plundering the bridge's rightful owner and then plundering the taxpayers. If things work out as usual, all the plundering and subsidizing will result in a development that is unsustainable and requires regular transfusions of taxpayer money to stay alive.

Respecting the property rights of the bridge's rightful owner would be a great first step in turning the city around from its usual "plunder and fail" mode to a new "respect and thrive" mode. May I suggest that, instead of stealing from needy children, the city ought to build a park right smack in the middle of The Courier-Journal's presses? Given the kind of pollution they spread, they surely would be appraised to have a value of zero -- just like the bridge!