Steve Brown's letter in response to my support of property rights in Peachtree City in 1999 was highly imaginative.

First, he assumes I would protest Galileo's or Martin Luther's challenge of church policies, or that I would agree with King George. I didn't. Whether or not I would has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Also Mr. Brown should be careful in using Love Canal as justification: Recent studies confirm that the health threat was extremely small. The evacuation was the result of fear induced by lies and hype.

The fact that some judge (even if he is a Supreme Court judge) somewhere, in some broad sense, agrees with Mr. Brown, cuts no slack with me either. My purpose was to defend property rights here and now and not encourage further erosion.

But let me ask how does Martin Luther King Jr.'s protest for fundamental rights have anything to do with property rights in Peachtree City in 1999? Whose rights are being trampled? Peachtree City residents?

No one has stopped them from voting or protesting. Perhaps it is the developer's rights that are being infringed.

The land has an existing set of zoning restrictions which Mr. Brown would change and hence dictate how the land may be used. King George would, I assume, approve.

Perhaps the reference to Martin Luther King Jr.'s protest has other purposes. I can only speculate: Is this reference here to ennoble a cause that many see as a petty dispute? Or is it here to infer that my support of property rights is the moral equivalency of racism?

My letter was narrow and specific to property rights in Peachtree City in 1999; Mr. Brown's was not.

David Constans
Peachtree City

Back to Opinion Home Page | Back to the top of the page