In two words: HELL, NO! For us little people, the cops would be the ones performing the eviction.
"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others", don't you know...
Posted on 06/29/2005 12:47:56 PM PDT by mark3681
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. Messages seeking comment were left with Laura Buono, board chairwoman.
"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."
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.
Maybe Justice Souter is starting to feel how put-upon people whose property is taken over feel.
GOOD!!!
We have our own Mullahs....they need to feel the HEAT!
Wow.
In two words: HELL, NO! For us little people, the cops would be the ones performing the eviction.
"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others", don't you know...
The politicians and judges should fear the populace.
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."
LOL, did he just say that if under eminent domain the citizenry have the right to such redress, then full steam ahead?
That's what it sounds like to me!
Not hardly. He doesn't care. He knows it all, you see.
Perhaps we are not thinking in the correct direction on this move.
And we just had to pay our car taxes. Puke.
The beachfront property, anyone?
What a wuss Souter is!
The the number of people pissed off at him and the other libs members of the supremes, I think he'll need more than the police to protect him.
Are they providing police protection for those that are being evicted by the police???????
He gets multiple officers for protection when no one has made a threat against him. Yet a woman who has a restraining order against her murdious husband gets no protection, is killed, and Souter says that's ok, cops have no duty to protect her.
Sounds as if Mr. Meany is thinking "let's go for it".
Sounds like he's easily rattled by public attention. Should probably consider a different line of work.
When I worked for a court in a very minor capacity, someone showed up taking pictures of my house. I called the police and they were unimpressed. But when they found out I worked for a court that was hearing a major labor racketeering trial they said that was a different story and immediately tracked the guy down. Turned out to be a local realtor getting comparables.
"It was a precaution, just being protective," said Lt. Mark Bodanza.
I'm sure the good officers would be just as protective if I were trying to keep my property, right?
Man, I feel like a fricking serf, just keeping up the King's property till he wants it back.
Yes, that is soooooo excellent. Even if this effort fails, I hope they keep coming. Souter deserves to live out of his suitcase for the rest of his days.
That's the elite for you: equal rights for nobody, special privilege for some.
Be willing to bet his home is way undervalued because he is a special resident and deserves a discount on his taxes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.