Dear Editor:

I wanted to follow up on my last letter about Alabama amendment 772.

The amendment states in order to donate or give public funds or things of value to an individual, business or other entity, it must serve a “valid and sufficient public purpose”

The city council of Brewton determined that going on private property and cleaning up fallen trees and shrubs served a valid and sufficient public purpose? Give us a break, AG. How on God’s earth can you stretch that far, saying to the city of Brewton that is what the legislature meant by passing 772? If this is the case, a strip joint built near the lumber mill can expect to receive city funds to build the building because it “promotes economic development.” This is so far out from the original intention of the framers of the

constitution (1901) of Alabama it is shameful.

A “valid and sufficient public purpose” is one that serves the public such as a water plant, a street, a new plant that employs people, a jail etc.

I don’t believe that they meant anything near this far out, especially since the courts have said it did not include retail. If it had, the legislature would have included retail in the amendment.

Joel Kennamer

Guntersville

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.