|  |
North Carolina
You Decide - Public Use or Politics? Due Process or Poor Process?
By Joel Raupe
Hard questions remain unanswered about the need for an “Outlying Landing Field,” or an “OLF” in historic and environmentally sensitive land in eastern North Carolina.
Now internal Emails, revealed in federal court, may show the Navy “reverse engineered” the process for site selection, deciding upon a preferred location and then creating a paper trail to make it appear as though other sites and possibilities for a desired aircraft carrier landing practice field had been eliminated.
In an era of impending base closings, unveiling the Navy’s site selection process has brought an uncomfortable spotlight on important constitutional questions, ancient state laws that give the federal military unlimited reign over North Carolina, authentic environmental concerns and, finally, whether there ever existed any authentic need for the Navy to build the proposed $200 million landing field.
The Navy hasn’t denied there are existing facilities well suited to this kind of military readiness, local fields that would alleviate increasing noise complaints troubling powerful officials.
Nevertheless, when repeatedly asked in open forums or formal correspondence the Navy’s response has appeared evasive, and evidence is often incomplete, not well substantiated or invalid.
“Why here,” has been the question repeatedly asked by my neighbors and myself. It’s a simple question. Why is this site the ‘necessary and highest, best’ choice?
Some have said objections to the Navy’s determined choice of a site for their proposed OLF are only a matter of wanting the field but “not in my backyard.” But the patriotism of those threatened with displacement is above reproach. They have only asked this simple, honest question and have not yet received any formal, credible answer.
As opponents fought for an honest answer to an honest question, the justifications changed. After one particularly rigorous inquiry, one admiral stated he took being questioned personally and opponents to the proposed site were questioning the integrity of the Navy.
The law of the land, however, compels the Navy to exercise good faith and objective screening, or take a ‘hard look’ at all sites for consideration. It’s disturbing that mandated standards for site selection also seemed to change. Alternatives were said not to meet established standards, established criteria were ‘adjusted,’ and some Virginia sites were not examined.
Did the selection process comply with due process, strictly, or even “in spirit?”
In 1907 North Carolina enacted a law to permit the federal government to take sole ownership and jurisdiction of any land it decided served its purposes. Did this state law override federal Constitutional protection of individual property rights and the federally protected individual citizen’s right to due process and just compensation?
These are important Constitutional questions that should be of concern to every North Carolinian and to all Americans.
Property Rights, especially with regard to land ownership and the “chain of title” were recognized by the framers of the Republic as absolutely vital to a free society. It’s no secret that, “in the interest of the public good,” in this case military readiness but in other cases the condemnation of private property to be resold to shopping mall developers or even taking away any of the “bundle of rights” individuals own over the use of their property, Congress, the courts, state and local government and governmental agencies at every level are increasingly indifferent to the doctrines enumerated on limited powers and apparently concerned more with political expediency.
The shadow of the higher standard remains in our Constitution, however, and it requires government to ask first if authority to seize property exists, and, if it must be so, under what limitations it may act.
Due process and just compensation appear to have become relative standards eroded in the last century by invented doctrines and laws not subordinate to the Constitution, some of which are indeed in direct contradiction to its very purpose and design.
In the case of the troublesome OLF, did the Navy put ‘the cart in front of the horse?’ Has it become habitual for networks of governmental agencies to show more concern with their own continuity above the interests of the people from whom they derive their purpose and existence?
Did the Navy take solemn care to adhere to considerations that would protect and defend the Constitution, and, in particular, the 5th and 14th Amendments?
You decide.
Joel Raupe is administrative assistant to the minority leader of the North Carolina Senate and lives in Beaufort County.
Home
|
|
