Tiger GPS: Government and Public Service Blog

The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution forbids the taking of private property for public use without “just compensation.”  The authority of federal, state, and local government to take private property for public use providing just compensation to the owner is called “Eminent Domain.” Is this policy fair? How does the government justify compensation of the landowner?  Is the public need of the land greater than the owner’s use of the land?

~No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. 

Currently, my family has land that will be taken over by the state of North Carolina for widening the road needed for double railroad carts to come through the town of Waco, NC.  The current bridge that is in Waco will not allow for double railroad carts, so the state is going to widen the road and raise the bridge to accommodate the transportation need of double railroad carts.  The town of Waco is approximately a half-mile long and on this stretch of land that resides the major businesses of Waco.  A county store, gas station, post office, feed store, car lot, and church. My family owns the land and building the church is on, plus behind that land, there are eight apartments that my family owns as well. The rent the church pays and the income from the rentals of the eight apartments is currently what is paying for the healthcare of my Grandmother.  The process of eminent domain will include my family’s land, all eight apartments and the church.  In addition, taking over the other major businesses in the Town of Waco.  The state does not take into consideration that my family is using that money and income to pay for my Grandmother’s healthcare needs.  Yes, they will pay our family for the value of the land, however, there will no longer be an asset that generates passive income left for our family.  There is no explanation other than we must go along and sell this land to the state for the railroad system to take into effect.  This will totally wipe out the entire town of Waco with no businesses left to provide for the town. I do believe in this circumstance there is greater use of the land for the landowners, the town of Waco, and the community members of this town.

True, the government must pay just compensation to take someone’s property with the power of eminent domain. It is a safeguard written into the Constitution by the founding fathers. The principle of just compensation ensures that the needs of the country are met through eminent domain, while at the same time guaranteeing that the individual will not alone bear the brunt of public use without being fairly compensated for the loss of land or property.

Most eminent domain cases in North Carolina, therefore, focus on what the land or property is worth, and not whether the government can be stopped. Scenarios in which the government may exercise eminent domain include, but are not limited to:

• Building a highway or road
• Building a school
• Creating a greenway or green space
• Building a public park
• Putting down water or natural gas lines
• Installing electric lines, poles, and access areas to reach them
• Putting down communication cables such as telephone cables or fiber-optic lines
• Building a hospital
• Constructing a public administration building, such as a Town Hall

An eminent domain attorney in NC, Chris Beacham, remarks, “In reality, the government’s power in this aspect of the case is pretty broad and one-sided against the property owner. That’s why it’s good to put some power on the property owner side to ensure that they are paid full market value for the property taken and for the damages or diminution in value to any remaining property.”

I do not believe anyone in the MPA program doubts how powerful social media can be with politics. Our current president may be the most galvanizing subject to ever land on a social media feed.  Is that a good thing?  One can certainly argue either side of that question.  The number of Americans engaged, enraged, and debating policy topics on Facebook is astonishing.

Our news media platforms are able to post an article within moments after an event occurred.  In turn, the Facebook-ing population can take a clickbait headline, not even read the article, and post an emotion-fueled opinion that satisfies their urge to vent. Often times, the event does not have any direct or significant impact to their daily lives, but regardless, emotions are spilled.  Our society may be more informed than ever, but they are surface-level informed. Weeding out the opinions from facts, exaggerations from detailed content, and attention-grabbing headlines from true statements can often be difficult and time-consuming.  From the Kavanaugh appointment and Trump’s daily remarks, to immigration and healthcare reform, the polarizing political conversations will only continue to shape our perspectives and future elections.

There are certainly positives to how open and abundant the news has become. Americans are engaged in a number of conversations online and they care.  That’s the keyword – care.  Regardless of whether or not they care for the right or wrong reason, an incredible number of Americans genuinely care about what is happening in DC and their own state’s government.  The numerous platforms and forums have also shed a greater light on domestic social issues and our federal government’s diplomacy.  The culture of this nation is evolving rapidly, nearly the same pace as our technological advances.  Injustices cannot hide from the public in today’s social media era.

With the good comes the bad.  The United States feels more divided now than at any point in the last few decades (or longer). While the emotions raging on Facebook may only represent a minority, and the extremists of that minority, they are still visible to millions of viewers.  The term “fake news” is thrown around daily from both liberal and conservative news media outlets.  Americans have a sharp decline in trust from what is perceived as news. According to a 2018 report by the Knight Foundation, “Most U.S. adults, including more than nine in 10 Republicans, say they personally have lost trust in the news media in recent years. At the same time, 69% of those who have lost trust say that trust can be restored.”  If you cannot trust the news to stay current on significant events, who can you trust?

Where do we go from here?  There is little doubt that inaccurate news and social media will play a significant role in upcoming elections.  Should we amend what is available to the public on various social media platforms?  If so, is it feasible without infringing on constitutional rights?  Do we ride out this wave and hope our population performs its due diligence and finds facts in the garden of lies and exaggerations? One thing is certain:  it is an incredible time for political and policy news.

Dearest MPA Colleagues – I recently recorded an episode of Cerner Corporations’ official podcast, “Perspectives on Health and Tech.” In the episode, titled Why Veterans and Service members need a modern EHR, I ask Veteran, former congressman and Cerner Government Advisory Board member Patrick J. Murphy these questions:

• How have your experiences in the federal government and cybersecurity spaces informed your view of how we can provide the best health care for Service members, families and Veterans?

• What’s your personal experience with receiving military health care?

• How will Cerner’s federal work help transform health care for all?

• How does your position as a commissioner of the Cyberspace Solarium Commission relate to federal health care modernization?

• Why should companies participate in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation’s Hiring Our Heroes campaign?

• What do you want to accomplish as a member of the Cerner Government Advisory Board?

I invite you to engage with the Cerner social media posts on Facebook ,Twitter and LinkedIn and to share the podcast on your own channels. You can find the link here https://www.cerner.com/blog/why-veterans-and-service-members-need-a-modern-ehr . You can also listen to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Play Music and Stitcher.

“It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us – that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain – that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

These words taken from Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address ring as true today as they did in 1863 when they were first spoken to honor the fallen. Throughout our history, men and women have answered the call to serve our nation and defend our freedom and way of life.

Far too many of these brave souls made the ultimate sacrifice. The cost of our freedom is indeed high. To these honored dead we pause on Memorial Day to reflect on the sacrifice made by them; many not older than their early twenties, who performed extraordinary service with bravery and resolve under circumstances most of us can’t even imagine. Hopefully, we will always keep their sacrifice in our minds eye by not taking our freedom for granted and never abusing the freedom which has been entrusted to us.

Our freedom and way of life has come and continues to come at a very high price. It must always be respected and in today’s times, it must always be defended.

So, as the unofficial start of the summer begins, let us take a break from our work or school routine and enjoy the company of family and friends at picnics and barbeques and of course the wonderful parade down Main Street. We have a great deal to be proud of in our Nation. We owe it to the fallen not only to never forget them for their sacrifice, but also to celebrate the freedom that they so selflessly and so ultimately defended for our sake.  Thank you.

Outlined in the Constitution of the United States, “The Congress shall have the Power to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization throughout the United States” (Madison 1787, Article I, Section 8, clause 4). This sets the stage for a need to regulate the entrance of non-citizens into the United States and establish a path to citizenship. As the desired objectives of the United States change over time so have the policies that affect immigration. Immigration policy in the United States dates back to its founding. The Naturalization Act of 1790 established the first rules for becoming a citizen of the United States of America.

Immigration policy reform has been used to manage the amount and type of people entering the U.S. It has been used to import agricultural and non-agricultural workers. Also, numeric limits have been set, and were reset multiple times, to manage refugees the U.S. is willing to accept.

Laws have been passed to provide citizenship or residency status to certain classes of people. Current law is being enforced to discourage an influx of aliens. It has never been lawful to come into the U.S. and stay without proper declaration. Registration and evaluation have been the law in some form throughout the history of the United States.

Incremental policy changes have gotten the U.S. to this point by excluding a specific class of people and specific countries while at the same time limiting the annual amount of immigrants who can enter the country. The U.S. is still a protectionist country. The policy makers want the U.S. to be a country of assimilation, not colonization. People with specific education or job skills are shown preference by policy over those who would be a burden to the system.

As administrations come and go and conditions around the world change, immigration policy has been continuously changing. The U.S. has found that as incremental change occurs surrounding immigration, the policy enacted as a result may need monumental reform to achieve its desired objectives. Introduce quotas here; exclude specific people there. Immigration policy is continuously under reconsideration because the two sides want slightly different outcomes. Examples include open borders versus regulated borders, amnesty versus deportation, colonization versus assimilation, and anonymity versus registration. Both sides want to have people be able to enter and leave the country. The task at hand is deciding which set of rules will we follow.

The civil rights revolutionary Martin Luther King Jr. referred to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as the “Second Emancipation.” This act was introduced by John F. Kennedy who famously stated, “And this nation, for all of its hopes and all its boasts, will not fully be free until all its citizens are free.”

Freedom. On the land where this televised address echoed, the hauntingly melodic lyrics of Billie Holiday’s “Strange Fruit” wove for the listener a tapestry of racial bondage. Against all odds there remained a push for equality, unity, peace, and freedom. The courage of Rosa Parks ignited the Montgomery Bus Boycott. The Governor of Arkansas summoned the national guard to prevent the Little Rock Nine from integrating into Central High School. Four black students initiated the Greensboro, NC, sit-ins. Dr. King marched on Washington accompanied by approximately 250,000 people. Four African American girls were killed in the 16^thStreet Baptist Church bombing. The Selma to Montgomery marches travelled through police unleashing dogs, high pressure water hoses, and beatings of peaceful protesters. Amidst the turmoil continued the push for equality, unity, peace, and freedom.

Resistance from supremacists and politicians were painful contractions as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was birthed as the most sweeping civil rights legislation since the Reconstruction. The sacrifices during the Civil Rights Movement have born significant legislative fruit, providing equal protections for African Americans while drastically crippling legalized segregation and discrimination. The experience of Rosa Parks was covered under Title II, Injunctive Relief Against Discrimination in Places of Public Accommodation, “All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment … of any place of public accommodation… without discrimination or segregation…” During his march on Washington, Dr. King’s iconic speech highlighted the need for social and economic justice: “Now we realize that dislocations in the market operation of our economy and the prevalence of discrimination thrust people into idleness and bind them in constant or frequent unemployment against their will.” The Civil Rights Act of 1964 established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC): “It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual….”

I ponder the immeasurable sacrifices of those who birthed this law into to existence with enormous gratitude, pride, and a desire to strive for greater. Greater equality, unity, peace, and freedom.

Being a parks and recreation director for over six years prepared me for being a city administrator in ways most people wouldn’t imagine.  In all honesty, at their core, the mission is quite similar. Areas of focus in parks and recreation, such as program development and risk assessment, transfer very easily into the world of city administration, only on a larger scale.  I’ve always told people when they ask about the transition from parks and recreation to municipal administration, if you are able to resolve issues with parents during youth programs, you can deal with anything.  No one is more passionate or volatile than a parent that is advocating for their child’s best interest.  In comparison, a city council meeting is typically less tense, but not always.  The list of skills that are interchangeable between the two positions is extremely long. I’m going to only touch on a few that I feel convey my point.

Working in parks and recreation you are constantly solving problems and dealing with conflict resolution.  As a city administrator, problem solving is second nature and conflict resolution is a commodity that is used almost daily. I learned early on that you will not please everyone, but your goal should be to achieve a win-win outcome – this is essential to problem solving and conflict resolution. Working in parks and recreation helped instill approaching every situation with the goal of a positive resolution.

When I first became the parks and recreation director, I had to convince the community that I was capable of providing a safe and enjoyable environment for the youth sports programs.  Gaining community trust was one of the most important and difficult actions I encountered.  At the time I was promoted to city administrator, the very same issue of community trust and support had to be addressed again, on a larger scale. It is paramount that the community feels a sense of trust and good will in both the parks and recreation and city administrator positions.  Citizens need to know that you are capable of providing for their needs and safety concerns.

Prior to my promotion, I was under the impression that it was uncommon to transition from parks and recreation to city administration, but that is untrue.  It is more common than you would think.  From small towns to large cities, parks and recreation directors transitioning to city administrators are common.  In my opinion, the transition is common because parks and recreation is the perfect field to hone many skills that are needed to become a successful city administrator.

The Buck Creek Foundation began with a dream and that dream was to create a place where regardless of intellectual disability, individuals could come and be taught essential skills that lead to greater independence, social awareness, and that enable them to live the best life they possibly can. Through their two campuses, Giving Hope Gardens and Giving Hope Farm, the Buck Creek Foundation will create agricultural programs to employ these individuals. These campuses will go beyond just providing vocational opportunities, but will enhance these individuals’ lives by fostering a greater level of confidence in them, so that they may become more active and contribute to society in a way previously unseen.

The Foundation’s goals include changing social perspective. Society as a whole has created a false sense of disparagement by labeling these individuals based upon a disability. The Foundation will not use these individual’s disabilities as a platform to enhance these false stereotypes but they will spotlight these individual’s unique abilities in order to cultivate self-confident members of society with greater levels of self-reliance and self-worth. This growing community deserves to have opportunities just as you and I have been afforded. We must be the generation that changes the stereotype; the generation that creates awareness. The generation that institutes change and that builds a brighter future.

There are few organizations with such a charitable cause at their heart. The Foundation seeks to help those who did not choose the path that they are on, but it intends on offering services to as many as possible to increase the opportunities made available to them. They will focus on enriching lives in a positive environment that encourages these people to be their best selves and to reach for skills that are obtainable to them.

The Foundation doesn’t plan to stop this good work at just vocational skills, but in order to further develop these individuals, they will also provide greater levels of social training and extended levels of applied education. The focus of the foundation is truly on personal growth and without opportunity there can be no growth.

Imagine a day in their shoes. Imagine not having the resources to reach your full potential because of others neglect. Now, for moment imagine a place: where judgment doesn’t exist, where patience abounds, and where hope is the center of all things. This place will be Giving Hope Gardens and Giving Hope Farm. This endeavor is greater than each of us, for it is a journey to provide opportunities, education, and care for those who function on a level that maybe different but whose value is no less than yours or mine. It is time to change the definition of different because different is unique, different is beautiful, and different is what the future must be in order to make change a reality.

Buck Creek Foundation  https://buckcreekfoundation.org

Should there be an age limit on people who serve as public representatives? You must be 25 or older to serve as a U.S. Representative, 30 or older to serve as a U.S. Senator, and 35 years of age or older to serve as the President. However, there is no age limit on when you must step down from office. Late West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd served until his death; he was 92 years old. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (RBG) just turned 86 years old last month. Although RBG may not be a great example as I believe she is indestructible. The woman can plank in her 80’s… the woman can plank period, but I digress. Can people serving into their late 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s still have the same mental capacity they did when they were first elected to office? I’m not so sure. Some believe Ronald Reagan exhibited symptoms of early onset Alzheimer’s during his term. Although, CBS News states only about 3% of men and women between 65 to 74 have Alzheimer’s, whereas nearly half of people 85 and older have the disease. Ronald Reagan was 69 when first elected, so the likelihood he would have had Alzheimer’s during that time was small and more likely linked to his genetic makeup than his age.

Age, and the link to one’s mental capability, is likely to be brought up as an issue during the next presidential election. Our current president is 72 and two of the democratic candidates are 76 and 77. While there are many septuagenarians who are healthy and mentally fit, I’m not sure I want my president turning 80 in office. I mean, enduring the stress of the presidential office can take its toll on younger men and women, much less older ones. Look at before and after pictures of George W. Bush and Barrack Obama. This job can have physical and mental consequences for even the fittest of men.

According to a Washington Post article titled Can a president be too old? the general consensus is your 70’s and 80’s is not the prime time to be taking on such a difficult and demanding role. The article states “that between 16 percent and 23 percent of Americans over 65 experience some cognitive impairment.” Memory and cognitive speed are not what they used to be. I don’t know about you, and I mean no disrespect to the older audience, but I would rather not have a 75+ year old negotiating major deals and handling complex matters when it comes to the health and security of our nation.

As I sat in Lee Hall on Clemson’s campus last Thursday, surrounded by my peers to listen to Dr. Russell L. Riley, Co-Chair of the Presidential Oral History Program at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, present on  “The White House as a Black Box,” I was unsure where a topic like this could lead. As we are all aware, the “Black Box” records the events that happen during any given flight. The “Black Box” gives investigators insight on conversations, decision and in the unfortunate event that an incident happens, the “Black Box” reveals the details leading up to the event. Dr. Riley discussed his work documenting the oral history of the U.S. Presidency as the “Black Box” of the White House. Even though Presidential records become public records upon that President’s exit from office, the documents are not released until they have been examined for security purposes. As you could imagine, this process takes quite a while.

Dr. Riley gave multiple examples, but the one that truly stuck with me was the sheer number of documents from the Obama Presidency, as listed below. During Obama’s Presidency there were more than 15,000 cubic feet of stored textual documents, 6,000 cubic feet of audio/visual documentations, and an astounding 275 MILLION emails. Each item has to be individually reviewed minute by minute or line by line. President Bush’s data that was released in 1993 is only about 25% completed. So, in 25 years after leaving office only a quarter of the information has been reviewed, and if this pace is maintained it could be another 75 years to complete his document review.

Dr. Riley’s work focuses on past Presidents and their top officials. He and his team try to interview these individuals, maybe as many as 100 interviews per presidency, to provide a first-hand account of the dealings within the White House. This endeavor is to primarily fill in the gaps and to provide the public with the “common language,” and Dr. Riley and his team believe that the people who served under the President are usually the most substantive and truthful/critical because they were the closest and know the most. They tend to be internal critics.

D. Riley also informed those in attendance on the reality of how little we know about the sitting President and that we only have access to about 20-25% of the truth and what actually goes on in the White House. It was also stated that the general public can only draw inference on the dealings within the White House. A majority of the information that we are privileged to know is typically through leaks, investigations (i.e., Mueller Report), auto-biographies, etc.

I feel privileged to have attended an event hosted by Clemson University such as Dr. Russell L. Riley’s lecture on “The White House as a Black Box.” Not only was it greatly informative, it has prompted me to start looking more in-depth about the information that is presented by the media, leaks, investigations and reports. It has also made me curious on the free resources available through the Miller Center. If you are interested in the Oral Histories, you can access the documents and videos via https://millercenter.org.