Nominations for the next silent demonstration?

[error]

I recall a federal case of something-or-other that was thrown out of court because the sign prohibiting whatever the activity was couldn't actually be seen. I'll have to look it up.

[Dave Ridley]

here's another one...

http://forum.nashuatelegraph.com/viewtopic.php?t=254

when i am up to five or six I will start plotting out the next SD marathon

hopefully tho it will take us a while to find that many new evils to oppose

[error]

here's another one...

http://forum.nashuatelegraph.com/viewtopic.php?t=254

when i am up to five or six I will start plotting out the next SD marathon

hopefully tho it will take us a while to find that many new evils to oppose

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Michael Fisher]

Dave, you're awesome. 

[Dave Ridley]

an article by the perp in chief at local govt. center above:



Leave the New Hampshire Constitution alone


By Cordell Johnston

Editor's note: The writer is the government affairs attorney with the New Hampshire Municipal Association.

On Nov. 7, voters will be asked whether they want to amend the New Hampshire Constitution to limit the taking of private property by eminent domain. They should vote no. The amendment is unnecessary and meaningless at best and confusing at worst.

This proposal was born from the hysteria following last year's U.S. Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London, Conn., a decision that has been thoroughly misrepresented in almost every accounting. The Kelo decision is simply irrelevant to New Hampshire, and the rush to amend our constitution is pointless.

If you picked up a newspaper in the summer of 2005, here is what you probably "learned": the Supreme Court allowed the city of New London to kick Susette Kelo out of the home she'd lived in all her life and sell her property to private developers who coveted her prime waterfront location. Suddenly, everyone's home was at risk of being taken and sold to greedy developers.

Outrageous? Sure. There's just one problem with the story: Everything about it is false. The real outrage is that a national libertarian organization, the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Justice, has terrified homeowners (and lawmakers) by misrepresenting the Kelo case and its consequences. This is part of this institute's larger national campaign against every kind of governmental regulation, including most zoning and environmental laws. Now, a local political action committee is running commercials claiming the Kelo court ruled that "any home can be seized by eminent domain and bulldozed to build a shopping mall." Hooey.

Here are the facts: In 1998, the city of New London, a once-vibrant whaling center that had been abandoned by industry and left with crippling unemployment and a vanishing tax base, proposed a redevelopment plan to attract businesses, residents and tourists back to its riverfront area. The plan's purpose was to improve the city's physical environment and its economy for the benefit of all of its citizens. "Greedy developers" were not involved.

The plan included major street improvements, water and sewer upgrades, environmental cleanup, overhaul of a wastewater treatment facility, and establishment of a state park, public marinas, a pedestrian walkway along the river and a Coast Guard museum. Since state parks and public walkways alone cannot revive a city's economy, the plan also included a hotel and conference center, retail and office space, and some residential development.

One year after the development plan was proposed, the city chose a developer to implement the plan from a pool of applicants. The city held 14 public forums and hearings on the plan before the city council approved it in January 2000.

The plan required the acquisition of 115 pieces of property. Most owners sold their property voluntarily to the city. Six owners, including Ms. Kelo, refused and took their case to court. For the record, Susette Kelo had lived in her house for all of one year when the city began public discussion of its redevelopment plan -- not that that matters, but let's get the facts straight.

The Supreme Court decided that the city's taking of property pursuant to a comprehensive, integrated development plan intended for the benefit of the whole city was a permissible "public use" under the U.S. Constitution. It very clearly distinguished such a plan from the obviously impermissible taking of property specifically to benefit a private party.

What does all of this have to do with New Hampshire? Nothing. The Kelo decision did not affect New Hampshire law, or the sanctity of private property in New Hampshire, any more than a decision by the Supreme Court of Lithuania would. New Hampshire's constitution and case law provide greater protection than federal law does, and the Supreme Court acknowledged that when that is the case, state law controls.

In a 50-state survey published in 2003, the Institute for Justice -- the same organization that created the Kelo hysteria -- claimed to identify more than 10,000 cases of "eminent domain abuse" in the United States, but not one of those cases was in New Hampshire. In fact, the Institute for Justice singled out New Hampshire as being "one of the best states to own a home or business without fear of it being taken for another private party." Why, then, does New Hampshire's constitution need to be amended? It doesn't. No one has cited a single case in our 222-year constitutional history that would have been affected if the proposed amendment had been in place. (The one case frequently mentioned, an urban renewal project in Portsmouth in the 1960s, was carried out by the federal government pursuant to an act of Congress. No state constitutional provision could have prevented that.) Further, the language of the proposed amendment was (fortunately) watered down during the legislative process to the point that it accomplishes nothing. It states merely that property may not be taken for "private development or other private use." The constitution already says property can be taken only for "public use," which is the same as saying it can't be taken for private use, so what is new here?

Supporters assert, strangely, that this change is necessary to prohibit New Hampshire courts from defining "public use" too broadly. But the amendment does nothing to limit that definition. It merely prohibits takings for "private use" and leaves the definition of both terms to -- guess who! -- the same courts that have defined them for two centuries. The amendment would not, for example, prevent a court from interpreting "public use" to allow a Kelo-type taking.

Since the amendment apparently changes nothing, what's the harm in supporting it? First, having two articles in the constitution that say the same thing in different words is an invitation to confusion and litigation.

Second, approving the amendment would send a message that New Hampshire voters can be fooled into approving meaningless constitutional changes to advance someone else's ideological agenda. Tell these people to go back to Washington and leave us alone. Vote NO on question 1.

[Russell Kanning]

that guy sucks

[Dave Ridley]

Regarding the problem with the liquor commission above... here is their addie...

10 Commercial Street
P.O. Box 1795
Concord, NH 03302-1795

[Pat McCotter]

Regarding the problem with the liquor commission above... here is their addie...

10 Commercial Street
P.O. Box 1795
Concord, NH 03302-1795

Hmmm...right near the Social Security offices.

[error]

Cordell Johnston succeeded in confusing the issue more than clarifying it in that ridiculous pro-eminent domain letter. Not to mention the outright lying about the post-Kelo fallout: cities all over the country rushed to throw people out of their homes and put up shopping malls.

[Russell Kanning]

and noone in new london is better off now. There are just empty lots.

[Dave Ridley]

<<Cordell Johnston succeeded in confusing the issue more than clarifying it in that ridiculous pro-eminent domain letter. <<

I got a chance to say hi to him for you yesterday but instead for some reason I just handed him a flyer and stood there with a sign

[Kat Kanning]

Now that an income tax bill has been introduced, do you want to do some sort of demonstration about that?

[Dave Ridley]

not sure whether i could find a really good spot to SD this but it would truly lend itself to a streetcorner demonstration....

http://unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Breaking+the+chains%3a+Bad+idea+in+Portsmouth&articleId=0c2ceed2-1543-4517-af05-a2fad31a1912

Breaking the chains: Bad idea in Portsmouth


13 hours, 52 minutes ago

PORTSMOUTH IS home to the rarest of all small city treats: a beautiful, vibrant downtown. Some officials mistakenly think they can make it more beautiful and vibrant by banning chain stores.

Like Wal-Mart and SUVs, chain stores are a favorite whipping boy of snobs, elitists and local preservationists. Any sign of a Dunkin' Donuts, GAP, or Starbucks downtown, and the commissars of taste go bonkers.

But of course chain stores proliferate for one reason: people like them. And because people like them, they can draw much-needed traffic to other downtown businesses. Far from hurting downtowns, chain stores can help them.

Some people thought it just horrible that Gap and Starbucks opened stores in downtown Portsmouth. But nobody complains when the people who see the Starbucks and stop there for a coffee, or come to Gap for a trendy new top, also stop at a locally owned restaurant, jewelry store or knick-knack shop.

One option being considered is allowing chain stores, but banning their signs. But if tourists and passers-by can't find the stores that would draw them out of their cars, how can those stores help attract customers to neighboring businesses?

It would be a real loss of local character and flavor if every store in Portsmouth's downtown were a franchise of a national chain. But that would never happen. So what is the harm if a few chain stores open downtown? Nothing.

Unfortunately, some people have an impulse to impose their own tastes on others. And they often find their way onto local planning boards and councils. If they don't want to shop at chain stores, that's their right. But they should not infringe upon the rights of others by writing their own shopping tastes into local ordinances.

[Dave Ridley]

with regard to the income tax issue  I do have two silent demonstrations planned with leaflets written, will likely plan two others.  however I'm not sure how I would go about demonstrating in front the rep who sponsored it. and it will be january before I get around to the first four demos against this cruel idea.  anyway suggested locations to protest would be welcome....pm them to me if you like.

[error]

"I want my G-A-P" ?

Of course, the way to keep downtown beautiful and vibrant is to drive out all the businesses.