The Freedoms Taken Away
Residents opposed to the proposed Local Historic District ordinance (located near the bottom of this September 24 agenda) stood before the city council last night and shared their thoughts in kind.
I thank them for speaking.
But what happens when the planning and development committee and/or the full city council opts to amend the proposed ordinance? How will both opponents and proponents feel when the proposal — which every prior petition was built around — is edited to take those petitions into account? Will everyone remain steadfast in their support and opposition? Or, as I hope, might some residents realize the council is acting like the Great Negotiator and people will change their original statements to arrive at compromise?
The comments last night were from residents who urged me to vote no on creating a LHD. But they (and I) can only connect to a proposed LHD today. If the proposed ordinance is amended to give and take concessions from both proponents and opponents, will people change their minds? I wonder.
One more thing.
Roger Gagnon and others passionately stood in the council chamber and indicated the country was not built to take away freedoms from homeowners. I agree with them 100 percent. But I also refer back to the U.S. Constitution, where in Article I, Section 8, Congress has the power “to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land…”
If the Constitution provides authority to the U.S Congress (and by trickle-down logic, the City Council) to make rules and regulations, what freedoms are being taken away?
Lend me your thoughts below.
Add a comment and let’s have a conversation.
P.S. Thanks to comments below, I misread the Constitution. Sorry.
It takes the United States Congress to change the US constitution and it takes the US Supreme Court to interpret it to take away property rights–not the Newburyport City Counsel by “trickle down”. Private property rights would be taken away if this proposal is adopted.
Good Morning Ari,
As you know, I support a strong Local Historic District in conjunction with a National Historic Landmark Designation. This combination works well for a community as evidenced by the same combination on Nantucket. Newburyport has a wonderful Heritage that should be preserved with access made available to all.
As for justification of home owners losing rights I submit the following: Over the last century and a half, starting in 1879, Arrowhead Farm and my family have had land taken from us, on five separate occasions, by the City of Newburyport to supply water for the benefit of the Citizens of Newburyport, and those who visit our City. Even though we had no interest in giving up our land, and believe me when I say that we were angry in our opposition to giving up our land, we simply had no choice, as these takings are allowed by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
So I maintain that, as painful as it may be to give up some of their perceived Property Rights for the LHD and the benefit of all Citizens, Newburyport home owners must bow to Article 1 of the Constitution, if that is the decision of the City Council. Simple as that.
Thank you Ari.
Regards,
Dick Chase
Mr. Herzog,
It surprises me that a person in your position of leadership would purposely misrepresent the U.S. Constitution. The people elected you because they trusted you, and for you to not include the whole section of Article 1 Section 8 paragraph 14 completely disregards the trust that people put in you. For everyone’s knowledge this is the whole excerpt :
“To make rules for the government and regulations of the land and Naval forces”
This has nothing to do landowners right as you willfully misrepresent in your blog, rather this section is about the use and regulation of the Army and Navy.
I apologize, Dan. I did not intend to purposefully misrepresent the Constitution. Note my use of ellipses above. And until both you and John commented about Army and Navy, I never considered the term, “land,” referred to the Army.
You’re right.
Ari,
If you are going to quote the United States Constitution for heaven sakes quote the whole section, not just enough words to meet your needs. I believe it states “to make rules for the government and regulation of the land naval forces. You are misrepresenting our Constitution…why?
John
Please see my comment above to Dan.
Sorry.