The vote to evict Justice Souter

[realpolitic]

Several months ago, the Supreme Court said that it was OK for a state to use eminent domain to evict people from their homes to build shopping malls etc. A group got succeeded in qualifying an initiative to evict Justice Souter, who voted with the majority, to construct The Lost Liberty Hotel. The measure was rejected.

Proposal to evict Souter in retaliation for eminent domain ruling rejected
Jaime Jansen at 4:14 PM ET

[JURIST] Residents of Weare, New Hampshire [official website], the town where Justice David Souter [Oyez profile] of the US Supreme Court owns a farmhouse, rejected a proposal [2006 Town Warrant, Article 48, PDF] to evict Souter in a town meeting Saturday, and instead substituted a call for the state legislature to strengthen state law on eminent domain [JURIST news archive]. The proposal asked whether the town should take Souter’s farmhouse for development as an inn; whether to set up a trust fund to accept donations for legal expenses; and whether to set up a second trust fund to accept donations to compensate Souter for taking his land. Residents voted 94-59 by secret ballot to add the word “not” to the proposal put forth by a group of residents who petitioned to take away Souter’s home by eminent domain for the so called Lost Liberty Hotel [backgrounder]. Some residents protested [JURIST report] outside of Souter's home in January, but most residents of Weare primarily viewed the proposal as a vengeance campaign, led by Californian Logan Darrow Clements [campaign website], in response to the Court's 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London [opinion], which allowed a local government to take private property to develop a hotel, convention center, office space and condominiums.

[Imran Siddiqui]

instead substituted a call for the state legislature to strengthen state law on eminent domain

Which is exactly what Souter said should happen.

Weare, NH

[realpolitic]

My concern about the ruling is it eliminates a check and balance that could allow a corrupt government from abusing eminent dmain. The referendum also shows how eniminent domain can be used against a despised minority.

[Dinner]

Without eminent domain most major construction projects could not go forward no matter how needed or socially benificial. There should be some safe guard to stop governments eliminating (non-tax paying charities like) churches or low income housing but the over all power needs to remain.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Without eminent domain most major construction projects could not go forward no matter how needed or socially benificial. There should be some safe guard to stop governments eliminating (non-tax paying charities like) churches or low income housing but the over all power needs to remain.

The controversy in Kelo didn't arise because the state was using eminent domain to build a state project like a highway, it arose because the state used eminent domain to give property from one individual to another private individual. I'm a big proponent of government works, and I fully appreciate the necessity of public eminent domain, but I did not like it's extension in Kelo. After Kelo anyone's house could be taken under eminent domain and replaced with a hotel or a strip mall unless the state legislatures passed laws that limited the effect of Kelo in their state.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

instead substituted a call for the state legislature to strengthen state law on eminent domain

Which is exactly what Souter said should happen.

Indeed. All the Supreme Court had been called on to decide was whether is was constitutionally permissible to include redevelopment as a "public use."

Nothing in the ruling keeps the legislatures of the various states from passing stronger statutory safeguards.

[Dinner]

Hell, redevelopment should occur in blighted areas and economically important projects shouldn't be stopped because of one old man who doesn't want to move. That said there needs to be some protections to prevent the politically connected and corrupt politicians from using it for unacceptable reasons. I note that here in San Diego the city recently lost a law suit because corrupt council members (who were later arrested for taking bribes in an unconnected case) basically accepted money from a local developer to agree to use ED to condemn my favorate coffee shop/smoke shop (which had been the location of a poly meet). The court said it violated the state's laws about use of EB so the Arab fellow who owned the place got something like $70 million.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Oerdin
...so the Arab fellow who owned the place got something like $70 million.

Would he like to adopt me??

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Hell, redevelopment should occur in blighted areas and economically important projects shouldn't be stopped because of one old man who doesn't want to move.

Well does it make any sense to undertake a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to a wholly private entity, and declare the endeavor for a 'public use.'

I think they should have taken the man's house. The hotel would have obviously generated more tax revenue for the town.

[TCO]

butt****ing commies

[notyoueither]

Which ones?

[Berzerker]

A group got succeeded in qualifying an initiative to evict Justice Souter, who voted with the majority, to construct The Lost Liberty Hotel.

Hehe, fortunately for Souter he lives in NH where the people are generally more libertarian or conservative, it was libertarians who were behind this symbolic gesture.

Hell, redevelopment should occur in blighted areas and economically important projects shouldn't be stopped because of one old man who doesn't want to move.

Why? His little plot of land in the way?

That said there needs to be some protections to prevent the politically connected and corrupt politicians from using it for unacceptable reasons.

define unacceptable for this law you want to protect us (not from you, of course).

I note that here in San Diego the city recently lost a law suit because corrupt council members (who were later arrested for taking bribes in an unconnected case) basically accepted money from a local developer to agree to use ED to condemn my favorate coffee shop/smoke shop (which had been the location of a poly meet).

Aww, it has sentimental value. But that old guy, nah, he's just stubborn.

C'mon damnit, didn't the S & L heist teach you anything? You give politicians power to take our property "for the common good" as you see it, and they'll be taking our property for their own good. We already have a system based largely on legalised bribery and some law is going to keep the bribery out of eminent domain? Naturally the crooks will just make the theft look acceptable, that should be easy now that a strip mall can replace a house.

Indeed. All the Supreme Court had been called on to decide was whether is was constitutionally permissible to include redevelopment as a "public use."

The Constitution provides examples of "public use" and putting in a hotel for skiers doesn't come close. "Public use" means state owned - arsenals, dockyards, postal system, forts - stuff the gov't needs to do its job under the Constitution.

The problem here is the still unrealised 14th Amendment. The courts have gradually, and sometimes reluctantly limited the states with the same limitations on Congress. I imagine eminent domain was a power belonging to the states and varied in its scope with the Feds letting them run their own affairs. Look how long it took for the courts to deal with education and voting rights abuses by the states.

Nothing in the ruling keeps the legislatures of the various states from passing stronger statutory safeguards.

The ruling re-defines "public use" which is an attack on our 5th Amendment rights, but it does get the activists a bigger audience.

Eminent domain is a scaled down version of ethnic cleansing, or should I say, class cleansing. Katrina did the job for the gov't, wanna bet very few of those poor people end up living there after re-development. And those great liberal defenders of the poor support this nonsense?