I-933 a choice between greed and good?
August 27, 2008 · Updated 7:54 PM
Mr. John Burbank states in his editorial in the Everett Herald, Wednesday, Nov. 15, that Initiative 933 was a choice between greed and public good. I resent that implication. I stand to lose several acres of land I purchased some 50 years ago that has a beautiful creek running through the middle of it.
Because of the new rules and regulations I will lose 25 to 28 acres of the 35-1/2 acres that I bought, paid for, and have paid taxes on for nearly 50 years.
You are saying I, and not a select few as you stated, but hundreds, of land owners are greedy because we think, like our state and federal Constitution says that the taking or setting aside of private property for public use must be compensated.
I believe you, the Everett Herald, and opponents like you used the inflated figures as a scare tactic to influence the public.
How can you or anyone justify the taking or setting aside of my property, your property or anyone elses without buying or paying for it. This is commonly called compensation.
Mr. Burbank, that is stealing, so is taking of my property, the only difference is the setting aside of my property was done with a pen instead of a gun.
Lets see how fair you are, Mr. Burbank. Lets take a $100,000 of your money (I stand to lose considerably more than that) or property and give it to charity for the benefit of the public. Now if you dont think thats not fair, then I guess you are one of the greedy people.
I hope Mr. Postma reads this; I want him to know I agree with and fully support his decision to pursue the property fairness issue.
We need to ask each other if the establishment were taking or setting aside a portion of your property you worked hard and paid for, would you think it fair?