EDITORIAL: LAKE FACTS: MORE LIKE LAKE PROPAGANDA

"It is only under the shelter of the civil magistrate that the owner of that valuable property, which is acquired by the labour of many years, or perhaps of many successive generations, can sleep a single night in security. He is at all times surrounded by unknown enemies, whom, though he never provoked, he can never appease, and from whose injustice he can be protected only by the powerful arm of the civil magistrate continually held up to chastise it."--Adam Smith-"The Wealth of Nations," 1776

I received a flyer in the mail recently that made me angry. Some of you probably received it as well. It was a wonderful piece of propaganda put together by the good folks at the Lake Facts Committee. The brochure was entitled "Get Hooked on the Lake: Learn the Facts."

The funny thing about propaganda is that rarely does it ever relay facts, instead it relays half-truths and lies by omission designed to get a large number of people preconditioned to the propagandist's point of view.

I think the Irish rock band U2 captures the atmosphere of the whole propaganda strategy with the line "you're spoon fed till you don't know."

Of course, an obvious argument that is overlooked by many is how can you call your group Lake Facts when you are relaying information from a study that was totally grounded in a subjective guesstimate of a possible future scenario? Your use of the word "fact" offends me to my very core.

And I am sure that if this is being read by the Lake Facts group they are now screaming this is propaganda. No my friends this opinion is based on months of research and a basic gut instinct that keeps telling me to do the right thing. I have nothing to gain from this editorial, my conscience is clear.

The right thing for the Lake Facts group will be to give this issue up right now unless you have 100 percent approval and endorsement from the land owners that will be directly affected.

You don't have that right now, if you did the area would already be a lake. No, instead you have decided to badger and bombard these people that live along the proposed lake area. Your strategy is to wait them out, to annoy them to the point that they will be willing to sell.

Lake Facts and others in favor of this lake have used the media, the mail and public forums to make their organization look as though they were doing everything in their power to appease these obviously insane people who won't leave their land so lake supporters could reap the benefits of a lake.

Well, these land owners aren't insane. Unless the fine people at the Lake Facts think that trying to hold on to your land is now somehow outdated, old-fashioned and just plain rude.

Leave them alone! They don't want to sell.

Another point that needs to come out about this propaganda leaflet, is that it is addressed Bollinger/Cape County Lake Voter. This issue isn't on the ballot, yet it was addressed in a way to fool the public into believing that voting on this issue will definitely occur. Attempts to make this lake a reality began a decade ago and all have failed. Realize your failure and move on.

Of course, I should mention the basic wrong of coveting your neighbor's property. But that very basic point gets lost in the Lake Facts propaganda shuffle.

The Lake Facts group use the economic impact study done by Dr. Bruce Domazlicky at Southeast Missouri State as the crux of their argument, but the plight of the landowners who will have to be relocated off land, that in many cases has been in their families for generations, is omitted.

To the potential voter (let's use those words until there's a change on the ballot) it seems that this lake is a no-brainer. The Lake Facts would have you believe that prosperity lies just around the corner, all you have to do is vote yes. And before you can vote yes, you'll also have to voice your opinion so that the issue can get on the ballot.

But what should be said to each argument the Lake Facts people put forth is simple and it is the one question they can not answer. Is there 100 percent agreement by the land owners affected? And the answer to that my friends is that there is not 100 percent agreement. In many circles there isn't even a majority, not that a majority matters here.

A question all potential voters should ask themselves is: Is it my right to decide where my neighbor can live? And in answering yes to this, then one must assume that you agree your neighbor has the same right to move you off your property.

But let's specify more. In saying yes to that you agree further that you can be moved off your land for something as trivial as a recreational lake.

What's next? Do we evict people so that the mall can expand? Don't laugh at that, I have a reading assignment for all of you. Go read the article on page 43 of "The U.S. News and World Report," entitled "The Mall's expanding and you're evicted." The story is in the Sept. 15, 1997 issue. I just love what people today consider to be for the "public good."

When you purchase property are you really just leasing it from the government until a majority of the people can decide a better use for your land? I believe this is wrong. I don't want to live in a place where this is a reality. Especially if the better use of the land is for something that is not vital.

This is the United States of America, the country that was built by individuals, the country that placed individuals' rights in high regard in its living legal document that binds us all, the Constitution.

I know that the law of eminent domain was created by language in the Fifth Amendment, but the use of this was never intended for recreation. It was intended to be used in the case where a road was needed for a trade route or other vital facilities.

In later years, the law was applied to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and other government entities as well, for electrification and channelization and other vital projects.

This lake isn't going to be used for trade and while there has been talk of electric generation, is it needed? The answer is no it is not. The argument for a potential water supply has also been thrown into the mix as a last resort to give the Lake Facts group some credibility. This lake isn't needed for the water supply.

This lake is not vital to the prosperity of this region.

Eminent domain should be reserved for the acquisition of land for highways, schools and other NEEDED public facilities. And it should be used only as a last resort for needed facilities.

The notion that eminent domain should be applied for the creation of a recreational lake is laughable at best, and criminal at worst.

In the case of this lake we are being asked to push people off their land. Sure we'll pay them the current going rate. And then, once they are out of the picture a great deal of the land will be sold at three to five times its current value for commercial development around the lake.

There has been other talk of allowing these people to keep what land that remains dry. So that they can develop or not develop as they see fit. That sounds almost reasonable until you consider the fact the land owners don't want to lose any of their land.

To agree with the argument that it would be for the greater good of the area to run these people off their land like they were some band of lepers would be the same as endorsing the argument for society over the individual, an experiment, may I remind you, that failed miserably in the cold climate of communist Russia.

The question that should be asked over and over again, is it right to take my neighbor's property so that I can catch a lunker bass in the place where Jimmy's shed used to be?

People with a conscience still know the correct answer. Give up the idea of a lake in the proposed area, it is clear that there are a large amount of people there who don't want it.

Remember that all the numbers they throw out at you still don't address the basic issue that land will have to be taken from people for this to occur.

They'll hide behind their brochures, "fact finding commissions" and laws like "eminent domain," until they've beaten you down and that is when they will strike, like a thief in the night. Listen to your consciences, better yet go talk to some land owners in the area. Put yourself in their shoes.

It isn't right. What kind of a message does this send to our youth?

Why is burglary wrong and expropriation right? Is it because they told you they were going to take your property from you first?

Let the Lake Facts group find their cash cow somewhere else.

Remember this is still America and the civil magistrate still answers to you, the potential voter. Make sure the civil magistrate does its job to protect property owners from the enemies that would take their land.