South Tulsa bridge meeting tonight

"eminent domain, which gives public officials both the leverage and the responsibility to ensure that the bridge is designed in a way that serves the public interest."

eminent domain is not "leverage" or "responsibility." it is a blatant abuse by government of its monopoly on legalized use of force. I'm surprised that you link and seemingly praise libertarian blogs and also apparently support the city in its oppressive actions against people's liberties.

yale & sheridan should have been four lanes out that far 10 years ago.
the dangerous curve you reference continues on to a "one" lane bridge about which something should also be done.
using your blogging as reference, just which elected officals are we going to entrust with the power of eminent domain?
anal retentiveness is an outlook, not a condition.
there is plenty of said outlook on both sides of this issue.

Luke, I agree with you that eminent domain is often abused, although I would disagree if you say that its use is never justified. My point was that, even though this bridge is a private project, the company building it is depending on government assistance to make the project happen; condemnation is one form of assistance the bridge builders are seeking. That dependence gives the governmental bodies involved the right and responsibility to impose conditions on the bridge builders to ensure that the public's interest is served. One aspect of the public interest is the burden the additional traffic would impose on publicly maintained roads.

While I believe that eminent domain takings are justified for the construction of a public facility, such as a road, in this case the condemnation would serve a private, for-profit enterprise and would constitute abuse of eminent domain. I'm hopeful that the Supreme Court will make that principle clear when it rules this term in Kelo v. New London.

if you only say that it is "often abused" then you are not in agreement with me at all. you mis-understood. that may be your own perspective, but don't give the implication that is what I asserted.

you're not correct when you state that private, for-profit utilization of eminent domain is just an "abuse." eminent domain, whether inflicted on people for private or public purposes, is an outright injustice. period. because people have the right to their own private property. that right cannot be violated by other people if it is not the will of the owner - we call this robbery. why, then, would we contend that the government can violate this right, calling it "taxation" or "eminent domain" instead?

the job of government is not to promote "public interest" or "public welfare," is it? this is utilitarian nonsense. under which reasoning, couldn't the government also be free to violate other rights of people (ie, kill all red-headed female babies) if, for whatever reason, "public welfare" would rise because of it? the particular scenario is absurd, but the premise of government as a tool to promote "public welfare" is what drives a lot of socialist policies.

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't the 21st street bridge or the 11th street bridge originally operated as a privately owned toll bridge? If so does anyone know how long it was privately owned and how long they collected tolls? The proposed seventy five years for this bridge seems excessive to me. Does anyone know how long the life expectancy of this bridge will be before it will become functionally defecient? Will the taxpayers then be left holding the bag for these repair costs? Once again, 3/4 of a century is an awfully long period of time. I hope someone is asking these questions at the meeting tonight.

Here is a blog report on a Colorado group trying to use eminent domain for a private toll road:
http://emdo.blogspot.com/2005/04/senate-panels-eminent-domain-move.html