[Rugster]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
A private developer has contacted the local government in Supreme Court Justice David Souter's hometown in New Hampshire asking that the property of the judge – who voted in favor of a controversial decision allowing a city to take residents' homes for private development – be seized to make room for a new hotel.

Yesterday, Logan Darrow Clements faxed a request to Chip Meany, the code enforcement officer of the town of Weare, N.H., seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road, the present location of Souter's home.


Wrote Clements: "Although this property is owned by an individual, David H. Souter, a recent Supreme Court decision, Kelo v. City of New London, clears the way for this land to be taken by the government of Weare through eminent domain and given to my LLC for the purposes of building a hotel. The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare."

The Kelo v. City of New London decision, handed down Thursday, allows the New London, Conn., government to seize the homes and businesses of residents to facilitate the building of an office complex that would provide economic benefits to the area and more tax revenue to the city. Though the practice of eminent domain is provided for in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, this case is significant because the seizure is for private development and not for "public use," such as a highway or bridge. The decision has been roundly criticized among property-rights activists and limited-government commentators.

According to a statement from Clement, 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 in each room, guests will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged," the statement said.

Clements says 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 town 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 says his plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise additional capital for the project.

While Clements currently makes a living in marketing and video production, he tells WND he has had involvement in real estate development and is fully committed to the project.

"We will build a hotel there if investors come forward, definitely," he said.


Clements is the CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, which is dedicated to fighting "the most deadly and destructive force on the planet: abusive governments," the website states.

The activist says he is aware of the apparent conflict of someone who is strongly opposed to the Kelo decision using it to purposely oust an American from his property.

"I realize there is a contradiction, but we're only going to use it against people who advocated" the Kelo decision, Clements told WND. "Therefore, it's a case of retaliation, not initiation."

Clements says some people have already offered to put money into the project

[swank60]

It's stuff like this that really gives me hope!

Great find!

[cruzer]

Wow, hadn't heard about the New London descion yet...pretty much sucks. Guess nobody is safe at all anymore.

Stew

[60wag]

We've got a similar thing going here in Colorado. There is a law on the books that is over 100 years old that makes it relatively easy for a company to seize property to make a toll road. The intent of the law was to promote road development in the moutains to access mining claims. The law includes stipulations such as, "the road must have adequate pullouts so that mule teams can pass each other when traveling in opposite directions." The current abuse of the law is a business seeking to condem a mile wide swath of land from Colorado Springs to Greeley. It mostly rural but not entirely. It would involve the seizure of property from hundreds of farms and thousands of homes. Govenor Owens has been rather unsupportive of the rights of the affected property owners. (And you thought Republicans gave a hoot about protecting individual rights?) Anyhow, some of the property owners have gotten together to form a toll road company and are working on plans to condem the govenors mansion and pave it over.

[Ullr]

HAHAHAHAHA!

That is really classic and well done. Instead of cliche protesting or empty rhetoric this guy thought up a great way to make his point.

[BarnacleBob]

I love it.... where can i donate

[Noah]

Originally Posted by BarnacleBob

I love it.... where can i donate

Please send your donation via PayPal to pray4surf@gmail.com the minimun donation amout is $100.00

[mabrodis]

Originally Posted by 60wag

We've got a similar thing going here in Colorado. There is a law on the books that is over 100 years old that makes it relatively easy for a company to seize property to make a toll road. The intent of the law was to promote road development in the moutains to access mining claims. The law includes stipulations such as, "the road must have adequate pullouts so that mule teams can pass each other when traveling in opposite directions." The current abuse of the law is a business seeking to condem a mile wide swath of land from Colorado Springs to Greeley. It mostly rural but not entirely. It would involve the seizure of property from hundreds of farms and thousands of homes. Govenor Owens has been rather unsupportive of the rights of the affected property owners. (And you thought Republicans gave a hoot about protecting individual rights?) Anyhow, some of the property owners have gotten together to form a toll road company and are working on plans to condem the govenors mansion and pave it over.

Yeah that whole super slab thing is pretty jacked. I also heard some other group of home owners was trying to get approval for a road running East (super slab would run North/South), so they would grab the land before the Super Slab project could therefore it would no longer be private land and the seizure law that Super Slab is trying to use would not apply and they would have a broken road with sections they could not build on...

I'm baffled why any public person would not condemn the Super Slab project, it seems like political suicide for anyone to let it go through, since there has already been a HUGE outrage over it and it will only get worse if it comes closer to happening...

[swank60]

Originally Posted by mabrodis

I'm baffled why any public person would not condemn the Super Slab project, it seems like political suicide for anyone to let it go through, since there has already been a HUGE outrage over it and it will only get worse if it comes closer to happening...

Follow the money trail and I'm sure you'll find the answer!

[Cruiser_Nerd]

Hope springs eternal. Weare could use another employer and this new hotel is sure to increase the tax base and benefit the entire community, rather than just Mr. Suiter, private property owner.

There is nothing good about this supreme court decision. Even the most liberal in Connecticut are trembling in their Birkenstocks now that it finally dawned on them that their beachfront property and precious privately held open space would be worth a boat load more to the local government if it were developed commercially.

Broke another personal rule, discussing politics here, but this one is only 20 minutes down the road........

[QuietMike]

In one of the Federalist Papers (I can't remember which one and I don't have time to look it up), Madison says that citizens/subjects will put up with just about anything short of the government/king taking their property. Once the government does that, those people will never again treat their government as legitimate. They might be compelled to obey its laws for fear of punishment, but it will not be the voluntary compliance on which civil society is built.

[Mr. Toad]

I would like to hear McCain argue that Obama's tax plan is equivalent to the type of eminent domain permitted in Kelo v. New London.

I would like to hear Obama respond that his plan is the opposite of Kelo because it takes from the economically privileged and gives to the economically blighted.

Then, at least, we would be talking about the fact that in both the government takes something away from one person and gives it to another. Maybe then we could hear a discussion about whether that really should be government's role.

[-Spike-]

If you're gonna revive a three year old thread, at least give us an update on the hotel!

-Spike