European Stars and Stripes (Newspaper) - February 5, 1992, Darmstadt, Hesse                                Wednesday february 5, 1992 the stars and stripes a Page 13 commentary Ellen Goodman this in t Walton s Mountain George i suspected trouble when George Bush told a meeting of religious broadcasters a we need a nation closer to the Waltons than the  until then Many families thought they were living in a depression but they did no to realize it was the presidents plan. Then came the state of the Union address and it was All Clear. Yes a and a George boy is leading us Back through the Haze of nostalgia to those wonderful yesteryear of the 1930s. This is what he had to offer families. A a a commission on Urban families. A bit of Small change for the Middle class. A touch of welfare bashing for the poor. An invocation of Barbara As the Mother of us All a when Barbara holds an aids baby in her arms and reads to children she a saying to every person in this country a family  a proof that family matters to George the two big items for the budget reflect the administrations belief that american families share the innocence of the Waltons and the math skills of Bart Simpson. The much touted $500 increase in the tax exemption for dependents would add $150 for the family of four in the 15 percent bracket and $280 for those in the 28 percent bracket. Not much but like nearly everything else in the Bush budget it gives More to the people who have More. The Cut in capital gains taxes might actually help the Waltons a the cast now living on residuals in Beverly Hills. Sixty percent of the people who Benefit from a capital gains Cut May earn less than $50,000 a year As George claims. But two thirds of the Money goes to the wealthiest 1 percent. Even i can do those numbers and i was educated in american schools. Running through the speech i was struck by an utter disconnect Between oratory and reality. It is As if he met a new Hampshire family facing foreclosure and offered them hedge clippers. Or rather a tax deduction on hedge clippers. But there was another disconnect Between morals and economics. When the president extolled the Virtues of the Waltons he Wasny to thinking about their Bank account but their moral strength. Ask americans to free associate from the word a a morals and their linguistic path will Range from sex to drugs Rock a no Roll and blondes with Black roots. They wont talk about economic policy and morality in one breath. Anyone who does so is accused of such retrograde things As fanning a class  ask americans next to talk about Strong families and they will describe Loving parents and values As if economics played no part. We think of morals As a private an intimate family affair and economics As Public and impersonal. Pm Wohr a families in America Are supposed to provide a Haven in a heartless Economy. They represent the private world inside a picket Fence where our children Are raised and instilled with values As if immune from the outside. On Walton a Mountain that 1970s fiction of the 1930s, the family grew stronger in Tough times. In real life economics has As much Power to weaken the family As any internal moral corrosive. There is an intricate and daily interaction Between losing your Job and losing your self respect losing your mortgage and your temper and your marriage a ask anyone who has been sucked into this Black Nole. But Many americans remain silent and embarrassed about this truth convinced that any family failing is their own. The most outrageous moment in the state of the Union speech came when the commander in chief of this economic disaster described the opponents of his capital gains tax Cut. A you kind of remind me of the definition of the Puritan a he said a who could t sleep at night worrying that somehow someone somewhere was out having a Good  a Good time is the problem envy or is it fairness there Are honest differences about economic solutions. But the questions must involve More than numbers to be crunched. Economics is at Root a matter of Public morality right and wrong. Spare me the Waltons. Spare me the disabling fantasy that families grow stronger in hard times. An empty Bank account Isnit a test of moral assets. Any Leader who can look at family life in this Economy offer so Little Hope and then accuse people of envy deserves Only one response in the voting Booth Good night George boy. C Tho Boston Globe James j. Kilpatric when does taking clause take too much it sounds Clear enough. The fifth amendment says that no person May be deprived of property without due process of Law. Then it says a nor shall private property be taken for Public use without just  a Hundred years of jurisprudence have established this much the a taking Gause a As it is known to lawyers is about As Clear As old motor Oil. Now the supreme court has accepted a South Carolina Case in which the clause May be More definitively construed. The Case is Lucas is. South Carolina coastal Council. It will be argued March 2. Meanwhile All kinds of briefs Are flooding in. Some come from property owners backing David Lucas some from friends of environmental regulation. Depending upon the scope of the High courts decision billions of dollars could go one Way or the other. The facts Are not seriously in dispute. In december 1986 Lucas purchased two Large lots on the Isle of Palms near Charleston . He paid $975,000 for the property. His plan was to build a House on each lot one for his own family the other for resale. At the time of Purchase no Law or regulation would have hindered him in going ahead. Things changed in 1988. Before Lucas could Lay the first Brick the state legislature passed the beachfront management act. The Law expanded the coastal Council and the Council in turn defined the Lucas property As a a critical  beyond a certain setback line no new construction could occur. The object of the act was to encourage tourism to provide a habitat for plants and animals to protect life and property As a storm Barrier and to provide a pleasant environment for South carolinians to spend their Leisure time. The effect of the act was to deprive Lucas absolutely of the value of his land. Under the regulation the two lots cannot be used for much of anything except to look at. He contends that this amounts to a a a taking under the fifth amendment and that he is entitled to just compensation. Lucas counsel deny that a ruling in his favor could control questions of wetlands and flood Plains but anxious environmentalists Are not so sure. If government should be required to pay a just compensation for preservation of designated wetlands the Bill could be enormous. The principle behind the taking clause is not obscure. As the High court said in a 1960 Case it is intended to prevent government from forcing some peo ele alone such As Lucas to Bear Public burdens a which in All fairness and Justice should be borne by the Public As a  when the taking clause is exercised under the Power of eminent Domain no problem arises. Governments May condemn land for schools highways and Public buildings. Clearly such acquisitions Are for a Public  but South Carolina does not want to condemn Lucas lots and pay for them. The state wants Only to prevent Lucas from building his houses. The supreme court has had a Tough time with the taking clause. One of the first cases emerged from the great Boston fire of 1872. In order to Stop the Progress of the conflagration firefighters blew up a $60,000 building owned by one Bowditch. He said this was a a taking a and demanded pay. The court said no Tough Luck. Another Boston Case this one in 1909, established that zoning Laws regulating the height of structures Are not a  cities May zone for merely aesthetic reasons if the zoning is  a string of cases soon came along. The owner of a livery stable in Quot the greatest shopping District in the entire state of Arkansas a downtown Little Rock was ordered to move. The owner of an $800,000 Brickyard in los Angeles was told he could move his Clay but he could not make bricks. In Shenandoah county va., the owner of some Cedar Trees had to Cut them Down to prevent the spread of Cedar rust to neighbouring Apple Orchards. None of these plaintiffs received a dime in compensation. Generally the High court has held that no compensation need be paid when government acts to Abate a Public nuisance a laundry smokestacks in one Case a Kansas brewery in another. But the court has upheld awards for Airport noise that diminished property values. Lucas contends that his houses Are no nuisance and he argues that the state has gone a too  that was the vague criterion Laid Down by Justice Holmes in a famous faking clause Case in 1922. But How far is a too far we will have an answer before the High court adjourns in june. C univ Sal pious Syndicate