[White Shark]

This would be a case for the books. I find this story to be an ironic turn to a Supreme Court ruling. Obviously nothing has happened though as the story date is 6/29/05, and I haven't heard any new news regarding the situation. I enjoyed the article though, and thought some of you might too.


Proposal: Replace Souter's home with 'Lost Liberty Hotel'
June 29, 2005

WEARE, N.H. --Following a Supreme Court ruling last week that gave local governments power to seize private property, someone has suggested taking over Justice David Souter's New Hampshire farmhouse and turning it into 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," Logan Darrow Clements of California wrote in a letter faxed to town officials in Weare on Tuesday.

Souter, a longtime Weare resident, joined in the 5-4 court decision allowing governments to seize private property from one owner and turn it over to another if doing so would benefit a community.

The letter dubbing the project the "Lost Liberty Hotel" was posted on conservative radio show host Rush Limbaugh's Web site. Clements said it would include a dining room called the "Just Desserts Cafe" an a museum focused on the "loss of freedom in America."

A message seeking comment from Souter was left at his office Wednesday morning. The court has recessed and Souter was still in Washington, one of his secretaries said.

A few police cruisers were parked on the edge of Souter's property Tuesday.

"It was a precaution, just being protective," said Lt. Mark Bodanza.

Clements is the CEO of Los Angeles-based Freestar Media that fights "abusive" government through a Web site and cable show. He plans to move to New Hampshire soon as part of the Free State Project, a group that supports limiting government powers, the Monitor reported.

The letter was passed along to the board of selectmen. If the five-member board were to endorse the hotel project, zoning laws would have to be changed and the hotel would have to get approval from the planning board.

"At this point, the Board of Selectmen are taking no action," said Laura Buono, board chairwoman. The board met Tuesday night.

"Am I taking this seriously? But of course," said Charles Meany, Weare's code enforcement officer. "In lieu of the recent Supreme Court decision, I would imagine that some people are pretty much upset. If it is their right to pursue this type of end, then by all means let the process begin."

"I have to offer him the luxury of due process," Meany said Wednesday, adding that he planned to tell Clements that "he has started the process backwards." Meany said he will tell Clements he first must petition the selectmen, next the planning board, then the zoning board before "he comes to me for a building permit."

Souter's two-story colonial farmhouse is assessed at a little more than $100,000 and brought in $2,895 in property taxes last year.

The Supreme Court case involved the city of New London, Conn. The justices ruled that City Hall may take over property through eminent domain to make way for a hotel and convention center.

In his majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens said New London could pursue private development under the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property if the land is for public use. He said the project the city has in mind promises to bring more jobs and revenue.

At least eight states -- Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington -- forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow private property to be taken for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question.

From: http://www.boston.com/news/local/new...liberty_hotel/

[cruiser88]

im taking your house tomorrow get the hell out im builing a mall here whats the world coming to .what happened to free will . good thread it just shows the truth of it all.

[White Shark]

The guy who started it all lists the outcome on his site. He seems to be a free thinking Libertarian type. I don't know his particular political stances, but I do find his approach to the situation interesting. His site contains a lot of rhetoric and propaganda, but is interesting to read nonetheless.

It looks like he was almost able to get two guys into office to help push the thing through, but a few people in town came up with a special petition effectively exempting Souter from the law that he wrote the majority opinion on.

I always find it interesting to see how money and power can exempt you from those minor inconveniences that the little people remain subject to.

http://www.logandarrow.com/

[CF1128]

In New Hampshire we found it funny too,I think
some day I want to be rich enough that I get things for free.

[Jman]

God bless troublemakers. . . . .

[Cruisin'Carolina]

I read about this back when it first came up.....

Scary what governments will do. Almost nightly on Hannity & Colmes they feature a case, and each time it makes my blood boil.

One of the worst cases was a guy in Seattle, that was forced to sell his property to make way for a mono-rail project that is now dead. Instead of giving the prior owner first-right-of refusal at the price he paid, they listed it for 3X as much and stand to make a really handsome profit.

What surprised me was the extent this is truly happening, really everywhere, even in those states listed. They simply call a site "blight" and proceed.

WTF ever happened to developers doing things the old fashioned way? Why not make an offer the owner cannot refuse?

They won't because they don't have to. Now the government, being just as greedy, will clear the way for them.

Used to be it meant buying a chunk of your land to widen a road, or put up a utility line or something. Now they can just kick you to the curb, and out finance your legal team by using your tax dollars to fight you until your resources are exhausted.

[Cruisin'Carolina]

Nothing like twisting the constitution to fit an agenda, eh?

[Gundy]

Locally in Greenville S.C. the city took my wife's cousin's
business to make a stairway to the river in downtown.
He didn't want to sell. City offered $362K. Cousin wanted
$1.6 million. Jury gave him $1.825 million.
I don't think juries look kindly on this taking stuff.
City also will now have to pay atty fees too since the
verdict was closer to his #s than theirs.
Sucks none the less because his family had owned the property
since the 1945 and it was priceless to them and located on a river
in downtown.
Cruiser content: the FJ Cruiser Greenville S.C. showing was next
to this property. We used the $1.825M stairs to go to the
site. Strange though, they felt like ordinary stairs to
my feet.

[semlin]

there are no property rights in the canadian constitution. the provincial or federal governments can expropriate any piece land even without compensation if they want to, and they can empower local governments to do it too. However, in practice they have mostly limited expropriation to what is needed for public works, although they are not so shy about using zoning to leave you with title but no practical permitted use for your land.