As some of you may be aware, the U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a decision that allows municipalities to take private land (with "fair compensation" to the owner) and give/sell it to another private individual/corporation, if the new owner intends to use the land in a way that the municipality deems to be in the better interest of the community. David Souter was one of the justices in the majority of this 5-4 decision.
It seems someone has decided that turn-about is fair play....
http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html quoted in its entirety below....
---------------------------------------------------------
Freestar Media, LLC
Press Release
For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media
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.
I would LOVE for them to build something on his land, and take away his home! This 'eminent domain' crap needs to be stuffed back into the Pandora's Box it escaped from.
The fact that Wal-Mart can now build wherever it wants, even if the community and the people that live there oppose it, fills me with dread.
Originally posted by Shanshu311Speaking of Wal Mart, Waltons son died in a plane crash in Wyoming.
I would LOVE for them to build something on his land, and take away his home! This 'eminent domain' crap needs to be stuffed back into the Pandora's Box it escaped from.
The fact that Wal-Mart can now build wherever it wants, even if the community and the people that live there oppose it, fills me with dread.
Originally posted by The PlumberWhat exactly is economic benefit? Is it purely that the new use the land is put to generates more money? Surely a country with an economy more than twice the size of the next biggest in the world can afford to pass laws that take into account other things than money, such as appearance (i.e. a nice house with a beautiful well-kept garden would look better than a Wal-Mart and would give a place a warmer ambience, which certainly contributes to the quality of life of residents), and the historical and cultural significance of the property (does America have a 'listed' (protected) building system like we have in the UK?). Has anyone here read this law - does it give a broad enough definition of economic benefit and allow leeway to local authorities in applying it?
As some of you may be aware, the U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a decision that allows municipalities to take private land (with "fair compensation" to the owner) and give/sell it to another private individual/corporation, if the new owner intends to use the land in a way that the municipality deems to be in the better interest of the community. D ...[text shortened]... supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.
I'm not saying they shouldn't demolish this guy's house, but I'm not saying they should either. Each case should be weighed up carefully on its own merits.
P.S. When are you going to get rid of Double-ya and get someone in who remotely cares about the environment, other cultures etc., or at least is fluent in the English language and doesn't need a remote feed to help answer questions?
Originally posted by mosquitorespectHmmmm....where to begin? In the good ol' USofA we have a thing called the Constitution, which is supposed to be the foundation for our government. When it was ratified by the first 13 states, they deemed it appropriate to add 10 Amendments which we call "The Bill of Rights." The fifth one of these amendments says in part, "No person shall be... ...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
What exactly is economic benefit? Is it purely that the new use the land is put to generates more money? Surely a country with an economy more than twice the size of the next biggest in the world can afford to pass laws that take into account other things than money, such as appearance (i.e. a nice house with a beautiful well-kept garden wou ...[text shortened]... east is fluent in the English language and doesn't need a remote feed to help answer questions?
Somewhere along the way, the Supreme Court decided that it would be the body that would determine what the Constitution meant if there was ever any significant argument about it. The rest of the government went along with this decision (for the most part), and so that became part of our governmental tradition.
Property rights are very important to us Americans, but we also understand that sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. As you can see, the wording of the 5th amendment is pretty clear that private property can be taken for public use with just compensation. Thus, if the government needs to build a new highway and your house is in the way, well, tough for you, but the public needs outweigh your personal property rights.
Now if Joe Developer wants to buy your house and your neighbors' homes as well so that he can put up a big office complex, you have the right as a private property owner to tell him, "no, I'm not selling at any price." Usually what ends up happening in that situation is the developer pays you 2 or 3 times what your property's worth because he's going to make even more money on the back end. But ultimately, he can't force you off your land. That's the way we've understood things here in the USofA for 216 years or so.
But on Monday, our "Supreme Court" decided that if a local government thinks the new office complex is better for the community than your house, that they can force you off of your land. Somehow, they have found a way to read into the very straightforward words, "public use," giving/selling your land to another private entity as long as it somehow is for the "public good."
Souter is one of the 5 justices who agreed with this new "interpretation" of the Constitution. What Mr. Clements has done is attempt to bring the reality of his decision home, literally.
As an aside, two of the people in New London, CT who are being kicked out of their home so that the city can increase its tax revenue, is a couple in their 80s who have lived there for more than 50 years.
Originally posted by mosquitorespectThere's a reason that America has such a big economy.
Surely a country with an economy more than twice the size of the next biggest in the world can afford to pass laws that take into account other things than money, such as appearance (i.e. a nice house with a beautiful well-kept garden would look better than a Wal-Mart and would give a place a warmer ambience, which certainly contributes to the quality of life of residents)