There is a reference in the Declaration of Independence to property rights as well.

We hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The phrase “pursuit of happiness” replaced “possessing property”, as declared in the constitution of early Virginia. This was done due to the sensitives around the slavery issue, but in spirit essentially mean the same.

Someone mentioned the constitution does not even mention property but that is highly misleading as the state constitution in MN is obsessed with property rights.

ARTICLE I BILL OF RIGHTS Sec. 13. PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC USE.
Private property shall not be taken,
destroyed or damaged for public use
without just compensation therefor,
first paid or secured. (You want to
keep the oak the shell out the
increased costs associated with
keeping the oak – fair is fair) Sec.
15. LANDS ALLODIAL; VOID AGRICULTURAL LEASES. All lands within the state are
allodial and feudal tenures of every
description with all their incidents
are prohibited. Leases and grants of
agricultural lands for a longer period
than 21 years reserving rent or
service of any kind shall be void.

Sec 15 really deserves its own thread someday. About 15 years ago I had occasion to see the word “allodial” and searched the web for information (interestingly my word processor flags as a misspelling). The search brought me to sites for “crazy freemen” who made wild arguments that government backed mortgages were illegal and would bankrupt out nation – like I said “crazy freemen.” These same crazy freemen (who now are looking more and more sane) said the mortgage itself and property tax violate most state constitutions which were very clear in articulating private property rights.

PS…Where do we draw the line of when the perceived wellfare of a community goes in to a direct conflict with private property rights?

Now that’s a silly question, but here it goes.

I think i made it abundantly clear that i won’t deny a woman the right to an abortion.
This issue has been settled by the courts. I do however disagree that we as a society pretend that we are not killing life. This premise does nothing more then make us feel better and pretend that it is not killing.

The whole premise on this is absurd at best. I believe if we as a society want the right to kill a fetus…call it what it is and don’t pretend anything else.
Once we come to grips with this notion of killing. I think we are starting to look at it with more respect.

None of this will infringe on the rights of a woman to an abortion.

Even without a government title, I am happy to help organize a plan to protect the tree. If there’s real interest in doing so, speak up. Carpe diem!

You got the passage I was referring to.

Given our current financial situation, saving a tree is hardly on the top of my list.

You got the passage I was referring to.

My point was simply that property rights are not absolute. You seem to agree. I happen to think that destroying a tree older than the city itself is against Northfield’s public interest.

You continue to refer to the Constitution, but I’m not sure what exactly you have in mind. The only part of the Constitution that even refers to property rights is the last bit of the fifth amendment: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Since only some are suggesting that the City buy the land and nobody is suggesting they take it without just compensation, I don’t know what you’re getting worked up about.

Now you are stretching..comparing cutting down a tree with a nuclear dump site is a bit over the top.
I am asking you the same question as I have asked Tracy.

Where do we draw the line, between property rights and ” rights of the community” ?

Who will decide that right?

If we chose to ignore our constitution, why should anybody respect any other laws?

I would hope that all Americans, despite their political differences, still agree that our constitution is the bedrock of our society. Without it we fall in to anarchy, socialism, fascism, monarchy or any other strange form of government.

But government is limited and that’s a good thing. Even if KFC is undesirable, it’s good that the Planning Commission follows the rules we have and doesn’t act arbitrarily. We’re working to change the rules to guide development in a more sustainable direction. However, I also want to make Northfield a place where businesses wish to come and that means regulations cannot be so onerous and restrictive that business can’t afford to locate here.

I’m looking for that balance between prescribing uses and forms and the need to keep regulation reasonable and reasonably priced.

The issue of the tree is about private property rights, which are guaranteed in our constitution. I hope this is still that America that respects constitutional rights.

Peter, you know as well as anyone that property rights are not absolute. If Xcel had purchased that plot of land, that doesn’t mean they could just start piling up nuclear waste there. Ecological destruction is similarly against the public interest, and we as the public should do everything possible to prevent it.

Why are we not preserving beauty? We cannot import another one of these any time soon. I am not referring to the law. The law is the law because it’s always been done that way and a chain of links that goes back to a feudal system…unless you go back to the law of some of my ancestors who gave thanks every day for every tree that provided food, shade and medicine. Some may not even know that acorns come from oaks and can be used as food and medicine.

In my neighborhood, my house is one of the few that has trees that actually provide shade on a hot summer’s day to pedestrians. When we first moved here, I came home one day to find a woman dressed in long scarves with several children all sitting on the lawn under my trees and all I could think of was, what a wonderful site.
She looked my way and I just nodded and went inside. She knew she could stay and not have to rush off because it was “MY property and not hers”.

The first month I was in this house, another neighbor, said, cut this tree down, it’s messy. For goodness sake. Another neighbor actually got upset because I said I like longer lawn grass(as it is healthier and stays green longer.) For goodness sake.
People are getting too carried away with cleanliness and property lines. This is America. Home of the free and brave, not the miserly and mean.

The owner of the land has the right to do with that tree however he pleases. We might disagree with his/her choices, but this is the essence of tolerance.

If you don’t like KFC then don’t frequent the restaurant. Again KFC is a private business and has the right to be there.

Until the improved land use regulations are in place, Betsey, why are we allowing what we — regular citizens and planners — deem problematic to continue? Is there really nothing the city could do to freeze development until new regulations are in place (in the same way Bridgewater did under the ethanol threat)?

I agree that it’s not the role of the planning commission to address the unhealthy food sold at KFC. It does seem like it ought to be their role to control destructive and car-encouraging site design.

New land use regulations are currently in draft form and if we do our job well, they will be more sensitive and prescriptive when it comes to issues like stormwater runoff, ensuring pedestrian access, building orientation, and “franchise architecture.”

However, 2 points:

1. Zoning and land use regulation are not the tools by which corporate ethics and fast food culture will be changed. Not patronizing these establishments and working so that few enough people spend money in them so as to make them economically unprofitable will. I’m betting this will not be a government driven change.

2. Even with the best land use regulations (which I know Locally Grown’s Tracy Davis is working toward on the Planning Commission as I am at the Council level), change will be incremental and (frustratingly) slow. Changing the Highway 3 strip will be the result of one small development and redevelopment change after another.

Maybe the city council is looking for KFC to fund and sponsor some pothole repair in Northfield (Serious Business here folks!) Here is the link:
link text

They took all the trees and put ‘m in
a tree museum. And they charged all
the people a dollar and a half just to
see ‘m.

I’m not sure how much hope an inanimate life form has in the face of economic developement.