Eminent domain is too dangerous

This letter is in response to Clint Harper's comments in the Sept. 28 Moorpark Acorn. Dr. Harper is a fine man with a wonderful family. However, his reference to the dozens of concerned citizens who spoke against eminent domain as "uninformed sheep lead by a few demagogues" is condescending and devolves a complicated issue.

While it would be convenient to use metaphors comparing Dr. Harper to livestock in order to convey my pure disdain for his words as well as his position on eminent domain, I will not use objectifying speech to question his personhood. Such anachronistic language detracts from what could be the beginning of true dialogue between the city and its downtown residents.

Many of the "sheep" to whom Dr. Harper referred were military veterans, teachers, Rotarians, college professors, small business owners and longtime residents of Moorpark, all of whom spoke against the recommendations of the Redevelopment Agency. Readers should know that of the more than 300 people present at the meeting, not one person spoke in favor of the proposed amendment.

While some may have attended the Sept. 19 City Council meeting out of fear, many are sophisticated enough to recognize how dangerous unbridled authority can be in the hands of those with duplicitous intentions.

Robert Peskay, Moorpark planning commissioner, describes eminent domain as a useful tool for redevelopment agencies. Just as illegal seizure and excessive force can be useful tools for law enforcement agencies, they remain fundamentally unAmerican practices. Moorpark can continue to prosper without eminent domain. Change may take longer, but individual rights are less likely to be abused.

Lastly, Dr. Harper, who were the demagogues- those who exercised their freedom of speech to protect potential encroachment upon their property rights or the elected officials who voted unanimously with them? Antonio Castro Moorpark