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.
I agree with you. It's just bad timing on their part, to have this story published that is.
Judges should have protection. Didn't something happen, not too long ago, where a female judges' family was slain? Had something to do with someone she had convicted previously, I believe.
Maybe he's got the most zealous immediate neighbor. Don't worry, if Lost Rights Hotel succeeds (and, I'm sending the guy $20), I'm sure he can make it a chain and find at least four other choice locations for new branch locations. (Plus, more than a few in New London, CT.)
Anyone who tried to kill one of them would be an idiot who deserved the book thrown at him or her. Talking Souter's home, just as HE advocated, is far, far better.
That's my point; I'm talking about him having to have police protection, or feel the need. I'm sure it won't matter much.
Why should judges have protections not available to the rest of us?
Do you support a caste system? Some people are more valuable than others?
I thought Souter was tougher than that.
I can see him setting his knitting aside and bellowing "BRING IT ON!!!"
Dan
Of course we do. Slap some rags on their heads and don't let them shave and what would you have, with the black robes and all. Gotta cover those women a little better. Actually, there can't really be woman mullas. A contradiction in terms. They should be done away with.
The elites always need to be above us plebian commoners.
About fifteen years ago some very angry seniors chased and taunted Ways and Means chairman, Dan Rostenkowski, on the streets of Chicago. He barely made it back to his government limo.
Shouting Impeach! the seniors slapped the limo with their signs while Rostenkowski cowered inside and the limo sped away.
It scared the hell out of Congress and the Congress repealed the recently-passed law that set the seniors off.
I shutter to think what would happen today. Who needs protection from whom? Not to worry if you are here ILLEGALLY.
But Souter is one of our "betters"! Just ask him.
Here's a copy of the letter I sent to the Selectmen of Weare:
Most Honorable Selectmen, Ladies and Gentlemen,
By now, I'm sure each of you are aware of the important role you have been given in putting to test the United States Supreme Court's recent decision on eminent domain. I'm equally sure you are aware of an offer to obtain and use a certain property for a more beneficial use.
As has been said thousands of times previously, no event is significant until it happens to be your own ox being gored. I shall need offer no further elaboration upon that matter.
I trust you'll take this opportunity to make those aloof decisions devised at "the hands of that eminent tribunal" a reality to those Justices by helping reveal to them that neither they are ever immune to decisions which erode Constitutional liberties.
May God Bless,
Hey S.G. Remember a few years ago, when we still labored under the mistaken impression that we were a free country, and that Republicans were trying to restore a Constitutional Republic?
... and subject to the same gun control and other self-defense restrictions as everyone else in their city/county/state.
What makes this especially delicious is that Souter is a closeted nut-case who probably never leaves his house. I think he's still taking care of "mater", unless she has gone to her reward.
I think the elite in this country may not be aware of how edgy both sides are getting (of course we conservatives are righteous in our indignation and the left are simply moonbats). But both sides are apparently very cranky about this ruling. They may have ignited a powderkeg. All of the talk about overthrow and revolution from both sides seems a bit closer to reality than tin foil country.
How about the 'just desserts' bed and breakfast pavillon outside of the hotel on Souther farm?
I worked with a former fed circuit court judge. He had a young a man showing up quite often wanting to kill him on the grounds the (former) judge was controlling his life. Even more sadly this particular young man was the son of the judge's close personal friend. The judge's secretary told me that whenever the judge appeared in the newspaper he got mail from kooks saying he was controlling them with radio waves. So constant risk comes with the territory.
See 16 and 41.
That's all we need! Some nutcase going over the edge.
For this reason I'm all for giving him all the protection he needs.
We're all angry at the decision, but cooler heads will prevail, and we'll get this thing overturned the right way.
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.