Story comments - Reporter-Times.com/MD-Times.com

Hot topics » Obituaries - May 20, 2013 Jordan Browning graduates f ... Book sale is June 5

INDOT urges I-69 preparation

read more recent story comments Reader comments

Doug Arthur
Friday, July 27, 2012: 1:48 pm
More from Doug Arthur

I get I-69�.I don�t like it but I get it. It�s no secret I fought hard against it when I was on the City Council during my first and second terms. We lost� it seems�so far. The verdict is still out regardless of who says what. Let�s keep our fingers crossed.
In reality we do need to plan for it coming and we must be honest and open in our efforts. Annexation is not the answer to Martinsville�s destiny. Do we need to control our future when I-69 comes through? Most certainly we do, it�s an absolute must. First of all; and I have big doubts here, the State must listen to US in placing the exchanges that will be beneficial to Martinsville. Exchanges not only for economic growth along the savior highway, but to also bring people to the inner City. Have we forgotten that we have commerce deep within the City limits? Where are these businesses in the big picture? I haven�t heard a word about them. I travel and do so quite a bit. I�ve looked over and noticed the big buildings along the highway and wondered, huh, wonder what that is�.no intention of stopping to see. My not stopping does not hurt them one bit. They don�t rely on me to survive; they�re industry, big and small. But the retailers under and inside these concrete loops and overpasses would love for me to barter within their walls. I have no idea who or what they are, unless they have a quick meal, fuel or a bathroom I needed ten miles back. As far as I know�.me not stopping in to exchange currency, may have just closed their door(s). More pretty empty buildings, but the highway looks pretty full�..or is it.
Secondly, the land which I-69 is planned is not ours to control. It belongs to the individuals that have toiled and sweated to keep it. Be it farmland or a countryside home we have no right to encroach without invitation. What we can and should do is work with these people to assure they control their property and lives as they see fit. If the property owner doesn�t want to sell then we should work in their behalf to see that any and all compromises that will work. I know the State has tools to whip us with, just ask Bloomington, they threatened to stop all their Federal funding. ��.nice tactic. (Sorry, that just irks me, I just love how understanding and caring the aloof ones are in the domed citadel) If the property owners decide to sell then we should extend a hand in partnership and work to benefit them and us. A partnership of understanding and compassion makes a much better bedfellow than holding one down on the ground saying, you�ll love me eventually. No one benefits from the latter.

Doug Arthur

ronschoolcraft
Friday, July 27, 2012: 3:16 pm
More from ronschoolcraft

Secondly, the land which I-69 is planned is not ours to control. It belongs to the individuals that have toiled and sweated to keep it. Be it farmland or a countryside home we have no right to encroach without invitation. What we can and should do is work with these people to assure they control their property and lives as they see fit. If the property owner doesn�t want to sell then we should work in their behalf to see that any and all compromises that will work.

Mr. Arthur,

I agree completely with these statements. I am for the I-69 highway, but I am not for taking people's land by force of government through eminent domain. A responsible government that respects the rights of the individual can find a way to build the road and keep the land owners happy.

Thank you for putting liberty and property rights first.

MarkMcDaniel
Friday, July 27, 2012: 3:48 pm
More from MarkMcDaniel

Flum�s letter concludes that INDOT appreciates the city�s and Morgan County�s ongoing input in �the environmental process as participating agencies for Section 5.�

From what I read here INDOT does not place any more significance on Martinsville's input over Morgan Counties. So where does it mention they need Mr.Holloways guidance on how and where to do things and that the County is not capable of making correct suggestions. It is also amazing that right when the City is searching for support anywhere they can find it a letter shows up from INDOT but unfortunately it does not say anything supporting Martinsville's annexation.
Doug, I hope I don't ruin your reputation but I hardily endorse your comment.

To The Point
Monday, July 30, 2012: 2:47 pm
More from To The Point

Doug Arthur or Ron Schoolcraft:

Why do you keep talking about the city taking someone's land? Doug, you have set on these Planning/Zoning Boards and you know the city is not taking anyone's land, and have never implied that they would. They are simply suggesting "controlling" the use of this land....the ultimate decision to sell, or not to sell, still belongs to the landowner. THEY STILL WILL OWN THE LAND to do with it as they please.

outsider
Monday, July 30, 2012: 3:13 pm
More from outsider

TO THE POINT You just contradicted your self!

Doug Arthur
Monday, July 30, 2012: 3:49 pm
More from Doug Arthur

To the Point wrote: They are simply suggesting "controlling" the use of this land....

If I wanted to "control" your yard, your home, your living room or just your property... what would you call it?
These people ARE NOT within the City limits. And they DO NOT want to be in the City limits....

There is a difference and if I'm wrong, well, then I'm wrong...The members of the City Council have promised today not to take any property by eminent domain. That doesn't peomise that the next wave of elected will keep that vow. If my actions and beliefs today will stop an injustice tomorrow; then I can live with myself and any way you want to word it.

Doug Arthur
Monday, July 30, 2012: 3:51 pm
More from Doug Arthur

correction

promise that the next wave of elected will keep that vow. If my actions and beliefs today will stop an injustice tomorrow; then I can live with myself and any way you want to word it

ronschoolcraft
Monday, July 30, 2012: 4:53 pm
More from ronschoolcraft

To The Point said:
Doug Arthur or Ron Schoolcraft:

Why do you keep talking about the city taking someone's land? Doug, you have set on these Planning/Zoning Boards and you know the city is not taking anyone's land, and have never implied that they would. They are simply suggesting "controlling" the use of this land....the ultimate decision to sell, or not to sell, still belongs to the landowner. THEY STILL WILL OWN THE LAND to do with it as they please.

How do we "do with it as we please" if it is "controlled" by someone else. I've argued many times that this council cannot make promises for future councils. Eminent Domain may not be used today, but it certainly will tomorrow. There are many things that we do on our land now that will be illegal if the city limits expand. The first step is loss of property rights, the next step is loss of ownership.

Look around. It is happening all over the place.

8 comments found