#1 Possible Eminent Domain seizure of SC Justice's home
Posted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 7:15 pm
Take that, Souter
However, on the case itself-
I had a talk on the ruling with my attorney today, during our usual post-business sports/politics/life in general chat, and he had an interesting take on the matter.
As he said, good cases equal bad law, bad cases equal good law. And apparently this was a very good case. It was crafted in such a fashion that an opposite ruling would have called a great many eminent domain usages into question, those which would involve any interaction between government and private interests, and even could be used to strike down a variety of pollution measurements.
He was of the opinion that he couldn't find a better answer out of the case, as presented, beyond altering the restitution clause to go far beyond the current market value of the land by incorporating a percentage payoff clause that kicks back more money to the property owner.
He also said that the conservative courts are very likely to disregard and/or mangle this precedent badly enough that another case will end up before the Supreme Court before long, perhaps one that isn't so poisonously crafted.
Go libertarians, god bless my heathenous spiritual brothers-in-arms.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.
However, on the case itself-
I had a talk on the ruling with my attorney today, during our usual post-business sports/politics/life in general chat, and he had an interesting take on the matter.
As he said, good cases equal bad law, bad cases equal good law. And apparently this was a very good case. It was crafted in such a fashion that an opposite ruling would have called a great many eminent domain usages into question, those which would involve any interaction between government and private interests, and even could be used to strike down a variety of pollution measurements.
He was of the opinion that he couldn't find a better answer out of the case, as presented, beyond altering the restitution clause to go far beyond the current market value of the land by incorporating a percentage payoff clause that kicks back more money to the property owner.
He also said that the conservative courts are very likely to disregard and/or mangle this precedent badly enough that another case will end up before the Supreme Court before long, perhaps one that isn't so poisonously crafted.