READER'S WRITE

The newly appointed NJ Public Advocate, Ronald Chen, states that he will not have a "knee-jerk response" to the eminent domain question because it "is a complex issue." For who, we ask? The subtext of his assertion ought to be read as: "We need to keep this a complicated issue in order to obfuscate when we propose a solution that will have enough loopholes and ambiguity to satisfy those major campaign contributors who profit from the abuse of the power of eminent domain by the state in order to screw the little guy out of his home or livelihood."

Solving the abuse of eminent domain is not a complicated issue to anyone with a sense of fair play. It is only complicated to those who need to create a "fix" that can be gamed by those currently abusing its use. You know, like the recently passed and already compromised campaign contribution reform.

The state of Alabama was not confused when coming up with wording for its legislation to curb abuse of eminent domain. Their law states: "A municipality or county may not condemn property for the purposes of private retail, office, commercial, industrial or residential development; or primarily for enhancement of tax revenue." Whoa! That certainly is complicated to understand. Or is it so plain that it might just bring abuses such as those in Long Branch to a grinding halt?

With statements such as above, how Mr. Chen will execute his office of public advocate is already suspect. At least as far as really advocating for the public. Of course, when defining such a term as "public" one must keep in mind it is has a very complex and far reaching meaning. At least when it comes to how Trenton and the politicians see who the public advocate represents.

John C. Hendrickson
Red Bank, NJ