Posted on 06/28/2005 3:40:00 AM PDT by Smile-n-Win
Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.
Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.
On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.
Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.
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 each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."
Clements indicated that 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 Towne 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' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1433028/posts
This venture should go public - new york stock exchange
There out to be a way for Hillary to make another $100,000 with a $1000 dollar investment in here some way.
New headline
Pig hits Big in Pork Bellys
I would be willing to contribute to that fund, and to the one for the next residence he moves to. Also, for the other four "justices" who sided with Souter.
Asking for approval for something without a plan is ridiculous. Someone needs to look at the zoning and traffic associated with the parcel. The design should fit in with the neighborhood's current architectural styles. If Souter doesn't have enough land, and the design proposes sticking a skyscraper in a neighborhood of one and two story houses, it ain't going to happen.
No board is going to seriously consider something that consists only of a letter. The first step is to hire an architect.
Could you add me to your ping list, please? Thank you!!! :o)
"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.
You're added.
You're added.
Great update here:
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050629/REPOSITORY/506290321/1031
Souter's house.
Looks blighted to me. ;-)
You're on.
Great! I'll be coming by your house to remove all of it's contents, weather you want me to or not. But don't worry, I'll leave the appropriate amount of cash on the floor that would equal the "assessed value" (yard sale value) of your stuff. OK?
Somehow, I have a feeling you might take exception to that, and would rightly defend you belongings from me "not stealing" them from you, regardless of how much cash I left for you. The point is, you did not agree to the terms of my taking the items. If that's not theft, what is?
You're quibbling over semantics. If you don't want it taken, it would sure feel like theft to you. "Stealing" and "theft" are not an exaggerated description of what's happening here. They're right on the mark.
Would you please add me to your ping list?
Exactly.
please excuse my ignorance, but what is a "REIT"?
Done.
Real Estate Investment Trust
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.