| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| HERO!! - Application submitted to NH city council to condemn Justice Souter's house for hotel |
| 2005-06-28 |
| THIS IS AWSOME!!! 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. |
| Posted by:Slomoper Omish1773 |
| #24 Did Souter and the others think that this would not happen? Ah, the smell of arrogance in the morning. And, if I were city council members voting against, I'd be a bit worried about that upcoming election when there will be three of five. It's a nightmare really. That's why it's such an insane decision. I hope our lawmakers will move quickly to fill in the gap - but I hope they write a special clause in that the new laws don't apply to SCOTUS judges who voted for this unreal violation of our rights. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-06-28 20:58 |
| #23 Yeeeeee-haaaaaaah! I called for something similar to this on Thursday (comment #33) when this godawful decision was first announced, but I didn't think anyone would be able to go after one of the Justices directly like this! This is WONDERFUL news! Eat that, Souter! It sucks when your own overlording decisions come back to bite you in the ass, doesn't it? |
| Posted by: Dar 2005-06-28 20:14 |
| #22 Souter has a house in "Live Free or Die" New Hampshire and he still voted for Kelo? Next election, get 5 guys to run for Weare Selectmen on the platform of approving "The Lost Liberty Hotel". They would be shoo-ins. |
| Posted by: ed 2005-06-28 17:19 |
| #21 I think we have just hit upon a safety valve to prevent City Council meddling. If any gov't official wants to condem something, get folks together and request their property be condemned to build ANYTHING. EXAMPLE  Councilman Jones now regrets his decision to vote to condemn the Smith family residence to build the Joseymainia Ferris wheel.  Restauranteur Smith decided that he needed to open a new storefront, and the location of Councilman Jones' former home seemed the 'ideal' spot. |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-06-28 16:59 |
| #20 and we all look so forward to reading Souter's aguments as to why HIS house should be exempt. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-06-28 16:54 |
| #19 Veengence is mine sayeth the Note Clements is a Claifornia resident and was a goubenatorial candidate in the recall of 2003 against Gray Davis. Clements Website |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-06-28 16:25 |
| #18 Maybe Sea & Fred could schedule a Rantapalooza there sometime? I mean, it's going to have conference facilities, right? |
| Posted by: Desert Blondie 2005-06-28 16:20 |
| #17 Life is unfair. It's even more unfair if you're stupid. |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2005-06-28 16:18 |
| #16 Enjoy your summer recess, Dave. It'll be your last in that house. |
| Posted by: Tom 2005-06-28 16:14 |
| #15 But,but,but,....this isn't fair. |
| Posted by: Dave Souter 2005-06-28 16:03 |
| #14 I have found a new hero. I'm sending in my $10 now. |
| Posted by: mmurray821 2005-06-28 15:18 |
| #13 I love it! Count me in--let Souter and his family go live with Ginsburg or Tony Kennedy (until we can figure out what to do with their homes)! |
| Posted by: Jennie Taliaferro 2005-06-28 15:07 |
| #12 Excellent. I'd gladly donate to this. |
| Posted by: BH 2005-06-28 15:06 |
| #11 I'd donate to the cause and I'm not even in your country. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2005-06-28 15:01 |
| #10 Ain't America grand! What a way to make a point to those "Men/Women in Black" that have been chipping away at our rights since the 70's (many would argue even before that). This one crossed the line and it's only a matter of time before this is used against our |
| Posted by: BA 2005-06-28 14:53 |
| #9 Cool. I'd be willing to invest a couple of hundred $. :-D |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2005-06-28 14:36 |
| #8 The hotel would certainly draw in tax revenue: People would stay there just to spite the Supreme Court. Here's the homepage for Weare: http://www.weare.nh.gov/index.html |
| Posted by: Calchas 2005-06-28 14:30 |
| #7 Hell at 10 bucks a pop he could raise enough money. I'll pitch in 10, If I was not so lazy and had a real job it would be more. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet 0’ Doom 2005-06-28 14:27 |
| #6 OMG. Giggle. Snort. Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!!! |
| Posted by: Javiter Thiter7940 2005-06-28 14:18 |
| #5 Humm, Weare is just outside of Concord in the southern part of the state. Lot's of Mass ex-pats living there, but still fairly conservative. And with a strong view of property rights. The Selectmen may just have enough of a sense of humor to let this go forward enough to make him testify why they shouldn't do this. |
| Posted by: Steve 2005-06-28 14:16 |
| #4 I love swift justice. |
| Posted by: Tom 2005-06-28 14:14 |
| #3 What they also need is someone to get rid of that eyesore called the Kennedy compound. Prime realestate for a Walmart/Hotel/Haliburton HQ. I love this country! |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2005-06-28 14:09 |
| #2 as they say, what goes around, comes around. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-06-28 14:08 |
| #1 From John Adams: "The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence." |
| Posted by: Whomoting Slamp5976 2005-06-28 14:04 |