Let me first addressbawanajim and Sylvan. I love listening to everyone's opinions, pro and con. But since you all decided to go with the smart ass approach, allow me to retort. Let's see genius, I have Bachelors Degree in Business, within a month I'm hoping I'll be a CPA and have worked 13 years in the Financial Services industry. I think i have a little bit of knowledge about Capitalism, Free Markets, Property Rights and so on. And as to your Rights comment, if your talking about this part of the 5th Amendment "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation" , I don't believe Isaid they should take her property. I did a second post that mentioned Eminent Domain for land conservation. I did this just to get everyone all fired up. I don't believe in it. Never have. Just wanted to throw it out there and see what others thought. So, I suggest you do a little more thinking before you attack someone on a subject. There are plenty of people here who disagree with the original post and didn't approach it with "when you graduate high school, you'll understand things". So to you two I say, start threads on business concepts, the Bill of Rights etc., in another forum and I'll debate with you until your fingers fall off. Until then, bite me.

As for Pro-Line and your comment:

No, I wont be voting for Hillary in the 08 election, but roll out any other
democrat and they will get my vote. I've always voted Republican, but not this time. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, 'I was a Republican, I didn't
abandon the Republican Party, the Republican Party abandoned me' But
again, if you would like to discuss the 2008 election, please start a
thread and we can debate it there. I can go on and on and on,,,,,

Now, back to the real topic at hand, destroying the environment on your
land, like woman in the article, just because its been designated for
possible preservation. In a previous article, the DNREC spokesman made it clear that just because its green on the map, doesnt mean it cant be developed. These were just lands that were considered enviornmentally important and it should be taken into consideration before development rights are granted. Hell they already trimmed the areas they want to designate by 200K acres! The arguement that just designating land for possible preservation wipes out the property value is just wrong and I dont buy the womans statement that she didnt do it for spite. She did it for spite and also to manipulate the land designation for her own selfish wishes. To hell with the trees, wildlife, etc, as long as I can get my millions on demand with no hassles. Its greedy, its wrong, plain and simple!

Now I agree that its NOT right for the state to simply take a persons property or even prevent them from selling it if they desire. But I dont think its unreasonable to make landownerstake a few extra steps in the process or even make them listen to alternative selling options if they own enviornmentally important properties. In the end, if the state cant either a) come up with enough fair compensation for the property, or b) cant convince they landowner to take a little less than a developer is offering for the sake of the enviornment then you have to let them do what they want to do.

The point im trying to make is, the state needs to come up with a plan to persuade landowners to preserve land and slow down sprawl until such plan can be developed. Landowners need to look inside themselves a little deeper before they just sell to the highest bidder. And people like the woman in the article, well, I think I made myself clear about what I think about people like that and what should be done to them. They should be ashamed of themselves.