Posted on 06/28/2005 11:04:00 AM PDT by ovrtaxt
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.
Related stories:
Property battle heads to states
High court's property decision stirs anger
Court rules cities can seize homes
Carolyn
The courts will lean left during these land grabs. That's the factor that bugs me. On the other hand, every time the courts lean left, there's an opportunity for us to expose the courts.
Rush spent a good amount of time on this motel venture. It got his interest. Now, when someone wants to 'eminent domain' Rush's estate, the courts will be more than happy to oblige. But if someone wants to grab up a Pelosi estate, the courts will defend her. That's what I think will happen. So, we need to be ready to call the courts on it when they favor the left.
There's no sense of true justice on the courts. The only way to fix them is to help the public see them for what they are.
"If I have been reading the reports correctly, I think the decision is a deferral to a legislative determination of what is in the "public interest", rather than what some jurist thinks is the public interest."
What does the Constitution say about property rights?
My little sister was working in the Bush Whitehouse at the time Souter was nominated so I know a little about how this took place. She was Administrative Assistant to Boyden Grey who was President Bush's (41) Personal Legal Council. Amount other things, Boyden Grey's office was charged with developing the vetting criteria that was used by the Administration to pick Supreme Court nominees. There was a big push to avoid another Bork. Bush (41) had little stomach for a fight and was more of a New England liberal Republican then a conservative anyway.
Consequently, one of the main vetting criteria was that the nominee have written few controversial opinions that revealed his judicial temperament and political leanings. The idea was to give the Democrats little to sink their teeth into. The problem with this approach, which has been borne out by history, is that the President who nominated Souter had no idea what he stood for. They perhaps hoped he was a conservative.
No property will be taken without just compensation and only for a public use, but I suspect you knew that. My point was that the elected officials made a legislative determination of what a public use was, and the supremes deferred to the legislative determination. That is the antithesis of judicial activism. If you want to bust someone's shoes, it should be the City council, not the supremes
Is it more obviously unconstitutional than denial of speedy trial rights to all persons under US custody?
I clearly stated that I disagree with the city law authorizing the taking. I was simply making the point that whatever the New London decision was, it was not judicial activism. To the extent you are opposed to judicial activism, your anger should be directed to the City for making the bad law, not the court for upholding it. I have seen almost no criticism of the City's actions in this matter - all anger seems to be directed at the court, which for once was refraining from substituting its judgment for that of the duly elected representatives of the people.
me too! we need to make sure that the City of Weare has a good tax base. its obvious that Souter would approve of this use, has anyone just asked him if we could just have his property?
It's nice to know that Mike Wallace has found a new job.
"No property will be taken without just compensation and only for a public use, but I suspect you knew that."
And what did they mean by 'public use'?
Posted by mizmoutarde to bobdsmith On News/Activism 06/27/2005 7:33:02 AM PDT · 139 of 843
It has to do with the beliefs of the MAJORITY in this country, frequently the OVERWHELMING MAJORITY being negated by a judicial body that they did not elect and which is not accountable to the people.
Well, I guess I'm not going to get an answer to my question. I suppose it is easier to rant than think. . . .
It won't take much encouragement to keep my two senators on the filibuster bandwagon for "Border control?, We don't need no stinkin' Border Control" Gonzales.
I think the point is this: Let the hotel and associated law suits take its course. Let the case go back to the Supreme court. Souter would have to recuse himself, and that just might reverse this ridiculous case-law decision. No hotel would need to be built - it's just a prop in a comedy sketch.
There's lots of architecture students who could have a design competition and generate all sorts of plans for review.
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.