LETTERS: LAKE ISSUE BOILS DOWN TO VOTING

To the editor:

I am a landowner who recently sent a letter stating my stance in favor of the proposed lake. I felt it was extremely important for the outsider looking in to hear from a landowner directly affected so they too could see that not every landowner is against the possibility of a proposed lake. Since that letter was so kindly published for the review of the people in both counties, my thoughts, concerns and my right to express myself have been attacked by more than one individual. So to expect any landowner -- or nonlandowner, for that matter -- to honestly state his position is in fact an unrealistic demand to be asked, not to mention the expectation of getting an honest answer.

Fortunately, we are all individuals who will differ in opinion from time to time. Growth requires creative determination and perseverance. We could disagree, talk lowly of those who don't have the same opinion, constantly find fault in their views and complain endlessly. That doesn't change the fact this lake is still very much alive. By not allowing the public to vote on this issue, we are indeed being denied our constitutional right as a citizen in this country to vote. So, if we are denied our right to vote on this issue, then our constitutional rights are being violated in prohibiting the people under our free electoral system to vote with the majority ruling. This lake has never been voted on under any Senate bill. The changes that have been proposed are an amendment to Senate Bill 776, which both the proponents and opponents to the lake agree was a bad bill. This was recognized, and months of preparation, research, talking and listening to the landowners have been invested, resulting in these proposed changes. There is only one way to find out if the majority of the people would like a lake of this magnitude or not. Vote on it. It doesn't matter what the personal opinions of the opposition or the proponents are in regards to this lake. What is important are the factual data, studies and dissemination of that information to the public in order for the public to make an educated decision for or against the lake, if an when you do in fact have the opportunity to vote on this issue. The fact this bill is still being held up should be cause for alarm to all voters. After all, what are we afraid of? It may pass? No one can stop progress. It may be held up or slowed down, but never stopped.

This proposed lake is designated as a public facility, specifically designed for use by the public and owned by the public. We, the public, would be guaranteed access to this lake through the Senate bill. This lake would be managed by an elected 10-member board called the lake authority. The lake authority wouldn't own the lake. The people would own the lake. To give to ourselves such a lake of this magnitude for our use and enjoyment while solving water problems that exist in several surrounding communities is an opportunity that doesn't present itself frequently. This lake would be a magnet, drawing people and industry to it. This lake could possibly pay for itself via the water use. Of course, that can't be determined without a water study, which would cost $40,000 on up, depending upon how detailed and in depth the information sought.

The only two negatives to this lake would be the required use of eminent domain in certain instances and the possible sales-tax increase depending on the outcome of the water study and the lake's potential to pay for itself. Unfortunately, and hopefully only in a few instances, eminent domain would be a necessity. Eminent domain allows the taking of private property for the public good regardless of use, and the owner is rightfully compensated. Because of this, we have heard so much from the opposition citing the Fifth Amendment and screaming about private property rights. The most pervasive guarantee of the Fifth Amendment protects us in the "prohibiting against the taking of private property without just compensation," meaning it can be taken for public good, but the owner must be compensated for it.

The benefits or this lake are numerous. We would have a beautiful lake in our own area, a lake generating revenue for our area, a lake attracting new industry or existing industry looking to expand and create new jobs, a lake creating opportunity, allowing our families to grow and stay at home, obtaining their full education here and allowing them to retain a well-paying job in are area brought in by the lake. Bollinger County would have the revenue to expand the much-needed medical facilities, fire and police facilities, expanded schools and shopping. The possibilities are endless.

We could continue to debate this issue, or we can get the amendments to SB776, which is being held up by the opposition, passed thereby allowing it to be voted on by the people and decided by a majority in both counties. Contact your senator and representative. Give everyone at the very least the opportunity to decide for themselves if they feel this is a positive or negative for our community.

TAMARA S. BAREMORE, Vice President

Lake Facts Committee

Sedgewickville