Justice Souter's land sought for Private Development using Eminent Domain

[The Emperor Fabulous]

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.

Stick it to him.

There's an image in my head of a future where all land is privately owned by companies, and people live in apartment dwellings because it creates the greatest amount of revenue for the government. Sure, its outlandish...but the ruling makes it slightly more possible.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Already posted and possibility debunked.

[OzzyKP]

Where was it posted and debunked. This is the first I saw it. Sounds great

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Posted in the Supremes gone mad thread.


And may Souter choke on it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Btw, what I didn't post in that thread is that this would never pass muster. It's amazing how many people think they know what opinions say without reading them.

(I posted this somewhere else in response to someone who said it follows the decision)
How is it persuant to a "carefully considered" economic development plan? It seems quite obvious that any taking would be for purely vindictive purposes (at least now) and that doesn't fit being a development plan.

Read page 18 of Justice Stewart's majority opinion which fits this (they won't make a ruling on that in this case, but it is highly suspicious and most likely won't pass).

Or page 1-2 of Justice Kennedy's concurrence (courts should strike down a taking with only incidental or pretextual public benefits).

[OzzyKP]

I think the public would benefit.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And yet, since it isn't part of a carefully considered comprehensive economic development plan, it would fail .

And why go after Souter? He didn't even write a concurrence. Hell, O'Conner in the dissent would vote ok if it was a strip mall taking over your house (fits with the precedents). I guess only Thomas is free from vindictive eminent domain proceedings being threatened against him.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

In any event it all comes down to a governmental entity acting in the best interests of the governmental entity and not the presupposed consitituency.

Where in the world does the possibility of increased tax revenues (an act that merely perpetuates the growth of governement) act necessarily in the best interests of the people who are supposedly the ones who are to be served by said governement and by there consent only able to act as a governing body. Am I supposed to believe the massive increase in governemental services will ensue considering a likely disproportionate share of governmental service will likely be sucked up by the new RE development. Not bloody likely! Most likely case is, as I alluded to above, an increase in government tax base and a likely increase in services directed most specifically at the inhabitants paying the most in taxes (i.e. the RE developer and investor/owners) leaving the regular consituents no better off, and to boot those victimized by having their property taken from without their consent (but no doubt at fair market pricing ).


I can't wait for the first time this to be used for the likes of NFL stadiums with title of the property turning over to the NFL owners.

[pchang]

They just have to draw up a more detailed development plan that includes a property rights theme park, convention center, mall, and office park.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I can't wait for the first time this to be used for the likes of NFL stadiums with title of the property turning over to the NFL owners.

You mean like Chavez Ravine? Which was built using land confiscated by Los Angeles by eminent domain back in 1962?

You act like all this is a new thing. Eminent domain for economic development has been going on for a while. The Court just confirmed their precedents.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I can't wait for the first time this to be used for the likes of NFL stadiums with title of the property turning over to the NFL owners.

You mean like Chavez Ravine? Which was built using land confiscated by Los Angeles by eminent domain back in 1962?

You act like all this is a new thing. Eminent domain for economic development has been going on for a while. The Court just confirmed their precedents.

Was property title turned over to the NFL owner in that case or did it remain local governemental property? (Simply a question as I am not familair with specifics)

You forget I am not opposed to ED what I am opposed to is it being a mechanism to remove property from one private entity to place it into the hands of another at the whim(sy) of who the local government deems most worthy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Was property title turned over to the NFL owner in that case or did it remain local governemental property? (Simply a question as I am not familair with specifics)

It was baseball, actually. Chavez Ravine is where Dodgers Stadium is. The property was actually turned over to the Dodgers, where they built the first privately funded stadium since Yankee Stadium in 1923.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


It was baseball, actually. Chavez Ravine is where Dodgers Stadium is. The property was actually turned over to the Dodgers, where they built the first privately funded stadium since Yankee Stadium in 1923.

IMO it should have been challenged then back in '62.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I believe it was, but the courts ruled for LA and the Dodgers. This is NOT a new thing, once again.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
In any event it all comes down to a governmental entity acting in the best interests of the governmental entity and not the presupposed consitituency.

I take it you haven't lived in an area that has stagnant to non-existent economic growth (other than by choice, a la Santa Barbara County)?

Where in the world does the possibility of increased tax revenues (an act that merely perpetuates the growth of governement) act necessarily in the best interests of the people who are supposedly the ones who are to be served by said governement and by there consent only able to act as a governing body.

The necessity that the taking occur in the context of an economic development plan creates a years long process in most cases, with multiple paths of public input.

Am I supposed to believe the massive increase in governemental services will ensue considering a likely disproportionate share of governmental service will likely be sucked up by the new RE development. Not bloody likely! Most likely case is, as I alluded to above, an increase in government tax base and a likely increase in services directed most specifically at the inhabitants paying the most in taxes (i.e. the RE developer and investor/owners)

In most correctly run master planning / economic development processes, the developer is charged out the wazoo for infrastructure capital improvements and other special funds costs, so the developers generally pay more than mere taxes to fund the needed public services. One large part of "environmental" processing of development proposals is socio-economic impacts, which have nothing to do with treehuggers and a lot to do with accountants, financiers and services planning.

In California, under CEQA, socieconomic impacts which must be considered and identified include: traffic, noise, water, sewer, storm drainage and floodplain issues, impacts on schools, law enforcement, fire protection and other public services, and a host of other issues. This, more than purely environmental issues, is what *****es up most developers here, although they like to blame treehuggers for propaganda purposes.

In some areas of the country, like western Virginia, West Virginia, and much of the Mississippi river shoreline counties, they'd name streets after you, and provide you with all the bourbon, hookers and BBQ you could want, plus a zillion other subsidies, if someone was going to propose serious economic development.

San Diego has had a huge number of specific examples of property takings which benefited the community at large - from two decades of downtown redevelopment, to taking out the last dairy farm in Mission Valley (which killed commercial and residential development, as for some funny reason, nobody wanted to build near mounds of cow****.)

leaving the regular consituents no better off, and to boot those victimized by having their property taken from without their consent (but no doubt at fair market pricing ).

Fair market value a factual issue subject from the right of the municipality to take the property at all, so it's still another avenue of potential litigation by the property owners to jack up the price.

I can't wait for the first time this to be used for the likes of NFL stadiums with title of the property turning over to the NFL owners.

Title to the property doesn't really matter much in that case, since it's the improvements on the property and their single-use nature that determine the majority of the economic value. And Petco Park has been very good for San Diego so far, thank you.