OpEd in response to the Wilmington News Journal July 2nd editorial “How Eminent Domain Finally Went Down”</</a>

Buy Tramadol Now3 53 Buy Tramadol100mg Buy TramadolTramadol Best BuyTramadol Buy TramadolBuy Tramadol TwinpharmBuy Hydrochloride Tramadol85 Buy TramadolBuy Tablet TramadolBuy Online Tramadol UrlBuy Fl In Online TramadolBlogspot.com Buy TramadolBuy Tramadol HclUltram TramadolIs Tramadol A NarcoticDrug Interaction Of TramadolTramalPainkiller TramadolTramadol TabletsWhich Is Better Vicodin UltramTramadol Hci TabletsTramadol EuphoriaMedication Called TramadolWhat Type Of Drug Is TramadolUltram AbuseTramadol Drug TestsTramadol Caps 50mgReactions To TramadolWhat Is Ultracet Made OfWhat Is Tramadol 377What Is TramacetWhat Is Tramadol Hcl 50mg TabVicodin Vs. TramadolTramadol ForumsTramadol During PregnancyTramadol CheapIdentifying PillsAnalgesic Online TramadolOvernight Tramadol OnlineEffects Online TramadolC D O Online TramadolTramadol Medicine OnlineOnline Propecia TramadolOnline Tramadol CarisoprodolAvesto Online TramadolOnline Tramadol UltramInternational Online TramadolUltram Side EffectsUltracetIs Ultram A Narcotic

I am writing this OpEd in response to the Wilmington News Journal July 2nd editorial titled “How Eminent Domain Finally Went Down” by Ron Williams. While I often disagree with the opinion columns of Mr. Williams, I usually find his writings well-researched, factually sound and thought provoking. Unfortunately, this is not true in this case.

The Williams editorial demonstrated a vehement anti-labor union bias. It was excessively personal in the tone and content. It disrespected the State Senate and contained factual errors. It contributed almost nothing toward informing the public concerning the many different policy considerations concerning the proper use of eminent domain powers by state and local governments.

The anti-labor union bias of the editorial is deeply disturbing. The article essentially seems to blame the veto of S.B. 245 on threats from organized labor. This contention is unproven and, to the best of my knowledge, completely untrue. Some unions did actively lobby against the bill. Does Mr. Williams consider all lobbying “threats” or only when he disagrees with the positions of those doing the lobbying?

Unions were criticized harshly for being concerned about future jobs. It is unfortunately true that many large corporations and significant elements of the Republican Right are insufficiently concerned with the creation of good-paying jobs in Delaware and nationally. Most citizens appreciate the positive role of organized labor in lobbying for good jobs. Labor unions are one of the very few forces defending the jobs of working Americans whether they are unionized or not!

I know that the eminent domain controversy arising out of S.B. 245 may have scared off at least two major business projects once being considered for Delaware. These two projects would have brought $500 million in new construction to Wilmington and provided hundreds of good-paying long-term jobs to Delaware. Eminent domain was not necessarily required to complete the projects but the businesses involved did not want to necessarily undertake them without that option being available if absolutely required. S.B. 245 introduced an unnecessary risk in the business equation.

The eminent domain debate is about more than the obvious components of property rights and government power. It is about the proper role of governments at every level balancing property rights, jobs, property values, societal responsibility, public education funding, crime and many other factors to achieve the maximum public good without unduly undermining individual rights. The current system already does a pretty good job of balancing these conflicting policy considerations.

S.B. 245 addresses a perceived problem more than a real one. Eminent domain in Delaware has to date not been used to transfer private property to a different private owner. It is very unlikely to ever be used that way in Delaware with the possible exception of projects addressing urban blight in some of the most distressed communities. Urban renewal in Wilmington has so far been a pretty positive development for the citizens of Delaware. S.B. 245 puts that progress at risk.

Should an individual owner of a distressed property always be able to have the power to block urban renewal at their whim without the public having any recourse in law? Under current law, property owners faced with eminent domain will receive full market value for their properties. The courts set the price received not the government entity exercising eminent domain powers. There are always going to public hearings and testimony before eminent domain is exercised in urban renewal projects. It is a fair process.

Williams was wrong to imply that the Governor vetoed the bill under pressure or threats. The opponents of the bill had sound arguments to offer and convinced the Governor on basis of the merits of their case. The same can be said for the members of the legislature who opposed overriding the veto.

While I do believe that Senator Venables is a gentleman, the same can be said of nearly every member of that esteemed body. Williams was wrong to state otherwise. He owes the ladies and gentlemen of the State Senate an apology.

The editorial falsely identified Brian McGlinchey as head of the Laborers union. This is factually incorrect. He is a valued staff member and important lobbyist for that union. He does not head that union either locally, regionally or nationally. The editorial called McGlinchey a “national heavy” which is an unfortunate choice of words. He is nationally prominent in labor, Democratic and progressive circles. For a very young man, he is exceptionally skilled and well-informed. However, Brian McGlinchey is deeply rooted in Delaware politics. He is a very talented advocate.

Even before joining the Laborers, McGlinchey was noted for being a passionate advocate for working Delawareans, the poor and the downtrodden. His role in this issue was not correctly reflected by the Williams editorial. Did the writer actually talk with McGlinchey before writing about his role? He should have if he did not.

The News Journal should try to reach out to organized labor and offer them a more balanced editorial policy. The Williams column indicates that the News Journal editorial staff does not have a balanced understanding of the nature and role of the labor movement in Delaware. I am sure the bias is unintentional and easily corrected with better communication.

Written by Stephen Crockett (Host of Democratic Talk Radio http://DemocraticTalkRadio.com and Editor of Mid-Atlantic Labor.com http://www.midatlanticlabor.com ). Mail: 698 Old Baltimore Pike, Newark, Delaware 19702. Email: [email protected]. Cell phone: 443-907-2367.

2 Responses to “OpEd in response to the Wilmington News Journal July 2nd editorial “How Eminent Domain Finally Went Down”</”

  1. admin Says:

    This OpEd was not published by the News Journal.

  2. admin Says:

    Received this email:

    Stephen:

    Re: OpEd Response…

    I’m not sure why you find “The anti-labor union bias of the editorial is deeply disturbing.”

    Are we to imagine that just because organized labor supports or opposes something it is good or bad?

    If the issue was eminent domain and a bill had rather overwhelming support until the unions jumped on it, should supporters of the bill applaud the unions? What if the unions were motivated by special interests that were in conflict with the public interest?

    There was an example of this same phenomenon in Massachusetts not long ago. The issue was casinos. The opponents opposed the casinos for the public good. The unions supported them because of union jobs. This one did involve “threats” as I suspect was also the case in Delaware. “Teamsters threats after important vote …”

    I understand unions wanting union jobs, but when that conflicts with much more important public issues like eminent domain and gambling, you can’t blame people for not liking what the unions are doing. If that’s an “anti-labor union bias,” I’m all for it.

    David Denholm

    My response was:

    The link you sent is not relevant to the News Journal editorial. I have seen no proof of any union threats concerning eminent domain in Delaware. The charge was and remains nonsense. Unions lobbied, period.

    The anti-union bias was completely uncalled for and Williams should have instead defended his position against eminent domain instead of unfairly attacking the individuals or organizations on the other side of the issue. Obviously, both sides have some merit to their positions and could have made sound arguments.

    The News Journal should have printed my OpEd.

    Sincerely,

    Stephen Crockett