[1]: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/06/20060623-10.html
[2]: http://www.mnedr.com/
[3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoticon
[4]: http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=ccrsf2750.html&session=ls84

President Bush recently signed an [executive order][1]: “Protecting the Property Rights of the American People.” I’m glad to see property rights re-affirmed, but I wonder if it will have any real meaning or effect. As far as I can understand what I’m reading, it’s meant to make sure property is not taken “merely for the purpose of advancing the economic interest of private parties to be given ownership or use of the property taken,” which is very good, but that’s not really the state of the debate anymore.

The debate has shifted away from “public use” to “public good” and saying that public good can be the benefit the public can gain from increased property taxes available to a city if land is redeveloped. This topic became a big deal nationally in the Supreme Court’s “Kelo v. New London, Conn.” decision, which allowed such a taking, but also reinforced a state’s right to be more restrictive in what’s allowed.

This prompted many states including Minnesota to reform their eminent domain laws. This reform was helped along by a surprisingly diverse coalition of people and political groups called [Minnesotans for Eminent Domain Reform][2]. And [reform][4] was passed this year on May 15th.

All that said, I just wonder what’s behind an Executive Order on the topic. Maybe it’s the explicit instruction to the Attorney General to pursue it? Anyway, it just caught my eye as we had seen that Vadnais Heights willing to consider using eminent domain to acquire some family property recently. Have you ever had to deal with eminent domain?

**Update:** Oh great. It appears that my state Senator Mee Moua (District 67) **and** my state Representative Sheldon Johnson (District 67B) **both** voted against it. Sigh. And here I was giving the needle to “What’s Left of Maplewood” for actually *being* left of Maplewood. Look at me, the lonely conservative on Saint Paul’s East Side. Is there an [emoticon][3] for self pity?

I’m going to write them both to ask why they opposed it.

[1]: http://maplewoodmn.blogspot.com/2006/06/math-skills.html
[2]: http://www.kpmartin.com/?p=86
[3]: http://www.kpmartin.com/?p=92

I seem to have drawn a little more attention concerning my [recent][2] [comments][3] on political movings in Maplewood, MN. A blog has appeared yearningly named: “[What’s Left of Maplewood][1]”. (I do actually like the play on words from the apparently “progressive” blogger.) Why does the old shop-worn idea of tax/spend/regulate get called “progressive”? Marketing, I guess. Anyway, this blogger said something plain wrong about what I’d written. That’s too bad, though it hints to me the strength of their position.

Their blog writes of little ‘ol me:

> This blogger from Saint Paul [Ed: that’s me!] is mostly complaining that the newspaper researched the background of interim manager Copeland (a Republican activist), but did not dig into the background of various Democrats/progressives who were quoted speaking in support of Mr. Fursman or criticizing the new council at the meeting. His complaint is bogus. The background of a completely unknown person who has just been made the executive in charge of the city is 100% newsworthy, and the sort of thing we Maplewood residents wanted and needed to know.

My complaint, far from bogus, is plain and obvious. They “did not dig into the background of various Democrats/progressives”. Just read the article. They didn’t. My [first post][2] found that fact and the tone and language of the article odd. My [second post][3] suspected it may be on purpose, and gave reasons. Also, the “mostly complaining” comment is wrong in that I did not complain at all that Copeland drew fire, and it was much more than just the perceived imbalance that I was “complaining” about.

Now, if Copeland is “completely unknown”, then he’s not much of a “Republican activist”, is he? But of course he was not a completely unknown entity, as the East Side Review’s reporting found out. And if the blogger would do me any justice at all, he would have noted that I didn’t mind that Copeland got coverage, as I’d written…

Continue reading More Maplewood, Minnesota fireworks →

[a]: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22keith+ellison%22+site:powerlineblog.com
[1]: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/014383.php
[2]: http://www.kpmartin.com/?p=86
[3]: http://www.kpmartin.com/?p=92
[4]: http://www.answers.com/topic/kathleen-soliah
[5]: http://www.keithellison.org/
[6]: http://www.fineforcongress.org/

[Keith Ellison][5] is the DFL-endorsed candidate for Minnesota’s Fifth District congressional seat. Do not vote for him.

Ellison has been the subject of [pretty intense scrutiny over at Power Line][a], and in my opinion, that’s a very good thing. Power Line seems to be doing better investigative reporting than either of our local newspapers.

Sure, I can pretty much be counted on to prefer that a democrat doesn’t get voted into any particular office, but the thing that bugs me is when standard media outlets don’t seem to pursue investigating all sides with equal vigor (as regular readers [already][2] [know][3]).

One tiny little thing about [Ellison’s speech quoted today at Power Line][1] which made me want to post was this (the context is the alleged unfairness of prosecuting [“Kathleen Ann Soliah”/”Sara Jane Olson”][4] for her involvement in a fatal bank robbery among other things):

> The idea that the people who want to prosecute Sara Jane Olson have, well,they have a “June Cleaver” concept of what women are supposed to be about. They have a “June Cleaver” idea that Sara Jane Olson, women in general, were supposed to be in the kitchen cooking -SOMETHING. Right? And are NOT supposed to be engaged in political protest, laying out political thought, and certainly not breaking out of some concrete stereotype or image that they had. In the 60’s, when we fought for public housing: housing for people to live in, not shanty shacks or sugar ditches, and ghettos in Detroit, Chicago, so on.

Good heavens, what obtuse rhetoric. Interestingly, “political protest, laying out political thought, and [breaking out of concrete stereotypes and images]” weren’t on her indictment. “Conspiracy to commit murder, possession of explosives, explosion and attempt to ignite an explosive with intent to murder” were.

Call me a prude, but I hold to the high example set by June Cleaver that not carrying and using explosives and not intending to murder people is good.

What could possibly be Ellison’s point? Let’s (painfully) grant that all her causes were noble and her heart was pure as the driven snow. Should she not have been prosecuted?

Anyway, that speech alone would cause me to run looking for anyone else to vote for, regardless of party. But if you’re interested enough, the [other Ellison posts by Power Line][a] reveal someone who really wants to distance himself from his not-so-distant past views. And apparently our local newspapers are willing to help.

Ellison’s probably a perfectly nice guy. And he is out there in the public arena trying to get done what he thinks should get done. I always think a level of respect should always be given to those who take on public office – even if I disagree with them – and so I tip my hat to Ellison for being in the game. Even though I hope he doesn’t make it to the U.S. House.

And from a tech perspective, he has a [good web site][5]; standards-compliant and it looks like it was made with Adobe GoLive. :)

And though I’d urge you to consider [Alan Fine for Minnesota’s Fifth District congressional seat][6] instead, I gotta say the code behind *that* site makes me cringe. Microsoft Office indeed! {shudder}