Souter's home to be taken?

[jgmaynard]

I just heard from a friend of mine (who often screws up details) that Judge Souter, who wrote the majority opinion in Kelo vs. New London and lives in Weare, NH is about to have his own home taken by the eminent tyranny domain that he found in favor of Thursday.
Supposedly, a Libertarian selectmen from Weare has submitted a bill that will take Souter's home, and use the property for a hotel called "Lost Liberty Hotel", and which will have a copy of Atlas Shrugged in each room rather than a bible.
Man, if it's true, I LOVE it!
Since he's in New Hampshire, we could/should even have a large protest outside his house, maybe with a bulldozer.
Whatd'ya folks think?

JM

[pmarvel9]

Here's the press release:

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 Caf?" 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.

# # #

Logan Darrow Clements
Freestar Media, LLC

Phone 310-593-4843
logan@freestarmedia.com
http://www.freestarmedia.com


and the link:

http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

[FTL_Ian]

 

[JonM]

To be intellectually honest, should we not protest against this?  Perhaps not very hard though . . .

[MSTCrowT]

See:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45029

[jgmaynard]

I'm normally against eminent domain, as I am against violence. THIS is a matter of self-defense.
It's on the Drudge Report now

JM

[Michael Fisher]

This is an absolutely terrible idea.  It's obviously meant as a form of sarcasm or apparent karma, but it violates every principle I know, including the principles of truth, nonviolence, the golden rule, and zero aggression.

[Rocketman]

I'd agree, Mike, if I thought there was any chance Souter's home would actually be taken.? If it somehow got to that point, I'd be right next to you standing in front of the bulldozers.? As Gandhi put it, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."? Singling out a homeowner because of who he or she is would not be acceptable even to today's Supreme Court.

So, since we all know Souter's house won't be seized, I think this is a harmless and effective way of showing the implication of "Kelo": that when properly motivated (and what motivates politicians more than power or greed?), a few city councilmen can take your house and/or business and give them to somebody else.

The court majority's apparent belief in the sagacity of local and state legislatures baffles me.? Hell, I've seen petty government officials plan "economic development projects" merely to increase their own property values.? If you're a corporation or private developer, how hard can it be to bribe a city council or board of selectmen?? Already part of the game.? Truly none of our property is safe, unless we happen to be members of the elite governing aristocracy or our local good-old-boy networks.

Unprincipled?? Yes.? Offensive?? Only if they're really trying to take his house.? (I don't doubt their seriousness, but I'm sure they realize it won't happen).? I prefer a princpled protest to a publicity stunt, but as stunts go, I'd say this is a pretty good one, bound to arouse some Americans from their blissful slumbers.

So no, I'm not crazy about it, but I won't go so far as to call it a terrible idea.? As always, I appreciate your adherence to principle.

[KBCraig]

Dittos on Rocketman's comments.

Thanks to NH's strong laws against the kind of ED we're seeing in New London, seizing Souter's house --or anyone else's-- for private development just won't happen.

But for the purpose of making the point, this is brilliant, and well-done. Even better would be to take the same action against everyone on the NLDC or NL council who pushed for or supported the condmentation of the Fort Trumbull homes.

Kevin

[AlanM]

This is a joke, as it seems to me, but a brilliant one. What better way to emphasize the true meaning of the KELO decision. And it has the auxillary benefit of placing libertarians square on the side of private proprty rights. I speak to a lot of people who haven't a clue about what Libertarianism is. This helps break through the fog, just as Mike, Russell and now Kat, are doing with their protests.

[KBCraig]

I had another thought on this...

Clements doesn't want to turn Souter's house into a hotel/museum any more than Mike wanted to be a manicurist, or Russell wanted to go to Philadelphia. As political protests go, it's no less principled.

Yes, yes... the big difference (okay, HUGE difference!) is that Mike and Russell were protesting restrictions against what they have an inherent right to do, while Clements' protest involves something he has no right to do. And the fact that he has no right to seize Souter's home is a good illustration of how New London had no right to seize the Fort Trumbull neighborhood, and points out Souter's hypocrisy.

Indeed, were Souter principled, he would begin negotiating the price right away.

Kevin

[Michael Fisher]

The difference is a question of honesty.

I never stated that I wanted to become a manicurist.  I stated that my intention was to sell manicures until forced to stop, and I had the supplies necessary to do manicures all day long!   

Russell admitted to the media that he may not be able to visit Independence Hall while in Philadelphia if he was harassed too much on his way there.  He said he may be forced to stay in the airport terminal instead.  He was completely honest in his intentions as well!

[Pat K]

Well I love it. Even if it was for keeps, let the lordly fucks see how it feels.

[AlanM]

Mike,
I put this in the realm of Satire. It is obvious from the things he said that he is not serious. It is a satirical charade.

[danhynes]

Does anyone in this forum live in the town of weane? With only 5 selectmen just a few people in office could accomplish the goal of stealing souters house.