Vengeance

MOVE TO SEIZE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE'S HOUSE -- FOR HOTEL!
Posted on Wednesday, June 29 @ 09:08:27 EDT by drew  

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.

My understanding of eminent domain is that the government, while not strictly obligated under the law, would generally make a provision in the decision to seize property that involves a fair market payment to the original owner.

This particular court decision is somewhat disconcerting, but I believe that eminent domain is exercised only for weird things like giving land back to indian tribes. I think there's something about it in the 5th amendment, too.

One of those amendments in the constitution requires the gov to give fair compensation for the land.  The issue in the particular case is whether it is ok for the gov to take land from a private citizen, pay for it, and then sell or give it to another private citizen to develop, in the name of economic development, as opposed to using it for strictly governmental purposes, like a road or park.  I was suprised the court decided to hear the case since it has been pretty well-settled law since the 50s (during the 'urban renewal' craze) that this can be done.  

More important to people who care about property rights, imho, are the cases that try to draw the line on how strictly or radically the government can regulate the use of private land *without* it becoming considered a 'taking' for which the government must compensate the owner.  For example, if you own some land, and you’re planning to build a gated suburban subdivision on it and make millions, and then the army corps of engineers comes and declares it a wetland, so all you can do is pitch a tent there 3 days out of the month, can that be considered so radical a restriction that you are entitled to compensation from the government for what essentially amounts to a use of the eminent domain power?  It gets more interesting the more deeply you start to think about what exactly ‘property rights’ consist of.

Heh. Sorry--I wrote my final paper on this in law school.  

Uhoh someone who actually knows what they're talking about.

So what does this decision really do for property rights? It sounded to me like not much of a big deal, although I tend to be pretty libertarian and become apoplectic any time I hear about individual rights being trampled in the name of security or general welfare.

"but I believe that eminent domain is exercised only for weird things like giving land back to indian tribes."

Heh, 'weird'?

They also use it to put highways in. Happened here in San Diego when they were putting I15 through the middle of the city. A friend of mine lived in the neighborhood that got mowed down for the freeway, but had moved out long before it became an issue for him.

The decision confirms that the government has broad power to take property for any purpose remotely deemed to be for the public good, as long as it pays for it, thereby making it somewhat more likely, generally speaking, that your property can be taken from you against your will.

A law professor I had suggested that with these decisions, the court is essentially relying on the discipline of the market to limit governmental action in this area.  

It leaves wide open the possibility for abuse by government officials who want to favor their real estate developer friends.  But, at least in New York, you can go to court to challenge the price the government is paying for your property.  

By the way, it doesn't only apply to land.  Technically the government can take any property by eminent domain.  Most of the takings are of land because land by its nature is unique, whereas if the government wants a lincoln continental, it can go buy one from the dealer.

By the way, imho, 'rights' don't exist independently of a government to enforce them.  The real question is, what balance of 'public' vs. 'private' best allocates resources in the economic system.

> By the way, it doesn't only apply to land.

Example would be if a mad scientist discovered the secret to cold fusion in his garage, patented it, and then refused to comercially develop it. You could seize the patents for the public good. Right?

most of the time it seems that the big disagreement stems from the proposed "fair price" for the land.  Detroit used eminent domain to take land that was going to be used to build riverfront casinos (since shot down, they're staying where they are).  They were trying to offer people the current going rate for run-down slightly off the waterfront property, when they wanted a pro-rated share of what the city would be receiving for the land from the casino owners.  Messy.

Personally, I think these situations ought to be put to vote in the locality that is trying to seize the property.  It shouldn't happen so frequently that having these issues on the ballot all the time would become cost-prohibitive, and it's hard to argue with a vote in terms of the result being "for the public good".  Just my two cents...

I have worked for the State in Housing for 20 years and in Connecticut, eminant domain is used (or was used just) to take land for highways, schools, parks etc, things that the public would make use for.  This court decision allow's one of the cities in CT, New London, to take private land for "economic development" purposes, ie. to raise the tax base and provide jobs in an economically depressed part of the state.  This part of the state is also in the process of losing a naval submarine base and is expecting to take a big economic hit.  There was never an issue of just compensation, the effected homeowners will be receiving at $150,000 each and some more, it has been an issue of the definition of what could be taken by emminant domain and what under the 5th amendment constituted unreasonable seizure.

@axe's question, i don't recall actual cases regarding takings of intellectual property, but it would likely be decided that way.  That particular issue (cold fusion) might also involve national security stuff, that I don't know anything about, except that it likely involves black helicopters, or men in black, or something like that.

...and tydd sparks an intelectual conversation :confused:

never thought id see the day :)

edit - and isnt something like this how Lincoln was constitutionally able to free the slaves from the confedarate states? because they were considered property... idunno, might not be the same thing, it just popped into my head.

(Edited by Lifesbane at 10:57 pm on June 30, 2005)

Ya'll hijacked my thread.  This was a point and laugh thread not a Serious conversation thread.

Bah

In that case, let me ablidge..

^^  LOLOL!!!!!!

..thank you, thank you.  i'll be here all week.

Thanks Legs.    Glad I could amuse you.