Whenever easement cases arise, the opposition between the
individual and society is put into sharp focus. The Richmond City Council delayed
a vote on Monday[1] to
forcibly secure easements for land on Hull Street Road.
According to officials for the city of Richmond, the
easements are necessary to begin a $1.7 million federally funded project to
reconfigure Hey Road, Hull Street Road, and Derwent Road. The latter of the two
will be realigned to make traffic signal upgrades and improve sight lines.[2]
The individuals impeding the Richmond City Council’s plans
for road improvements are Aaron and Lena Haas, owners of the properties located
at 6001 and 6007 Hull Street Road.
According to Richmond City’s capital projects administrator,
Lamont Benjamin, “We [the city of Richmond] couldn’t come to an agreement about
the compensation for the easements.”[3]
If and when the city council approves the ordinance,
however, compensation for the easements will be determined by a judge.
It is cases like Haas’ that brings up the important classical-liberal
question of what kind of balance should be struck between respect for
individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property and the rights
of society.
In the case of the road construction around Haas’ house, a
dangerous intersection is being federally funded to be reconstructed. However,
doing so means that Haas’ will have to involuntarily cede some of the rights to
his property.
Can the government simply declare a piece of property
integral to its plans and forcibly take it?
Of course, one example doesn’t make a trend. The U.S. is an
open nation that pushes and pulls back and forth against differing ideas.
Should each forcible easement case be decided on a
case-by-case basis, or should one or the other always win (i.e. society or the
individual)?
No comments:
Post a Comment