[OilsNotWell]

Now perhaps SOMEONE may get the point on affront to liberty the recent SCOTUS eminent domain decision is....$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')onday, June 27 to New Hampshire media:

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

FreestarMedia

[I_Like_Plants]

Good case! Let's hope this is real and really happens as the needed test case to throw out the earlier decision.

Let me remind everyone again - it was the liberal judges that voted yes in this horrible ruling. A Supreme Court full of good conservatives like Justice Scalia would have not had a single yes vote.

[OilsNotWell]

I'm glad you agree that it's the ideal...the idea...the practice...the rights of...

Liberty.


"We must all hang together...for else we shall surely hang separately..." or something to that effect...

[UIUCstudent01]

I love it!

Oh sweet Irony!

[OilsNotWell]

Looks like they are looking for donations to make it a reality...

[OilsNotWell]

This decision will live in infamy...like Dred Scott v. Sanford

PBS

[Specop_007]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('I_Like_Plants', 'G')ood case! Let's hope this is real and really happens as the needed test case to throw out the earlier decision.

Let me remind everyone again - it was the liberal judges that voted yes in this horrible ruling. A Supreme Court full of good conservatives like Justice Scalia would have not had a single yes vote.

[I_Like_Plants]

Yep this is just like Dred Scott. And the people who are most affected by this will tend to me poorer and more likely nonwhite. You know, the people who in my life experiences would like to kill me on sight if they can get away with it. But the only way to solve that is to have the law, and private property, respected for everyone.

[OilsNotWell]

Exactly. Equal protection under the law.

The Rule of Law.

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on what's for dinner"

Liberty is what you should be thinking about instead...

[OilsNotWell]

There is a pledge drive for reservations at the "Lost Liberty Hotel" if erected upon Justice Souter's property:

http://www.pledgebank.com/LostLibHotel

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')n 28 June 2005, Logan Darrow Clements of Freestar Media contacted Mr. Chip Meany, Code Enforcement Officer, of Weare, New Hampshire (where Justice Souter owns a home) and proposed that the town of Weare transfer Justice Souter's home to Mr. Darrow, so that Mr. Darrow might knock down Mr. Souter's home and build a hotel and museum to lost liberty on the site.

By signing this pledge, you agree to pay for lodging in the "Lost Liberty Hotel", once it is built

It is expected that during one's week of residency in the hotel in Weare, lodgers will contribute significantly to the local economy - not just staying in the hotel, but shopping, buying gas, eating at local restaurants, etc.

This pledge is important, as it will help to demonstrate

(a) the large public demand for lodging in a hotel built on what is currently Justice Souter's property

(b) the large economic benefit to the citizens of Weare that will occur once the hotel is built.
....
I would like to reserve summer 2007 acommodations for two, please.

Breakfast service, evening beverage and turn-down services, a free newspaper and a copy of the Constitution of the United States (in lieu of Gideon) are also requested.
...
I would like the Benidict Arnold Suite for the week. Tea and Crumpets served proptly at 4 o'clock and a copy of the Federalist Papers to wipe my arse with.
....
As the operator of two travel agencies, I can verify the economic benefit would exceed the town limits (should you choose to partner with the travel industry). Would you believe we have clients asking about your proposal? They want to be on a list to be notified when it's actually in business. I'm sure our agencies aren't alone. Fascinating concept. If you hire experienced chefs, I'll take my reservation during the opening week.

[emersonbiggins]

Let's assume for a moment that the Kelo case wasn't about corporate welfare. If the city of New London, a landlocked city that had lost a military base, had indeed reached the end of its growth chart without densification (which this case was really about), isn't this cause for concern for any city in a capitalist environment? If a city's economy can't grow, for whatever reason, then it is most certainly doomed to wither and die (at least in the U.S.). Correct? What the city saw was underutilized land that could allow the city to grow its economy (by densification), while displacing a significant amount of single-family homes. It is, in essence, the first step towards a Manhattanization of this city. I'd like to point out the current configuration of single-family homes, decades old, yet quite charming, are also a product of the government intervention of "zoning requirements" and "long-term mortgages." The government artificially stimulated the market towards the construction of single-family homes via zoning and government-backed 30-year mortgages. Before these conventions came about, many people were living in multistory apartment buildings with no concept of "home ownership." So, without the government, we'd probably not be having this conversation right now. Without gov't intervention, the New London neighborhood would probably already have been acclimated to a higher-density in the true "free market."

What's equally as insidious as the actual SC ruling is the backlash by state legislatures to outlaw any government takings dealing with primarily "economic development" projects. I fear that these rulings are tying the hands of cities and regions to plan for future growth. What's a widened road for if not for economic development? It's certainly wouldn't get built to handle "future" traffic, since that would be an illegal seizure, intended to primarily induce and focus economic development. How are the next generation of high-speed railroads to get built in the U.S. with these broad-brush provisions? Certainly, property owners could make the case that to create/enlarge capacity of any transportation system would induce and focus growth along those arteries. However, to insinuate that the government quit planning for growth (building/widening roads, railroads, boulevards, etc.), we are doomed to sprawling out forever (with no commensurate infrastructure growth) like we always have, which any good POiler should know will be a useless type of "growth" when PO rolls around.

[smileyhouston]

Curious, I'm outlining a program with a few companies that will encompass this topic. As someone pointed out, many of you are in this industry. What are your thoughts?

One quote I saw:

“I’m devastated,” he said. “It’s un-American. Private companies shouldn’t be able to take land by eminent domain just so they can make more money for themselves. It makes me sick.”

Yet with demand increasing... what should be the choices?

Alex Smiley Maddox

worldenergysource.com

[joeltrout]

Another issue that you might want to add to your project is the forgotten mineral owner. Many people forget owning mineral rights also includes surface-access rights that cannot be taken away without the mineral owners consent. Though it happens often that surface development doesn't include the mineral owner thus condemning the mineral interest. Then lawsuits are easily won by the mineral owner and hefty settlements are made. The company I work for owns over 400,000 acres of mineral rights and deal with various types of surface development including eminent domain. It can be a problem but can also be very profitable.

joeltrout

[pup55]

What a great topic. So many questions.

a. What are your rights to live in your little house on the prairie when Exxon owns the oil underneath it?

b. What are your rights to own your little house on your trailer lot in hillbilly territory when WalMart wants to build a supercenter on it? What if it's the government and they want to flood your land and build a lake for other hillbillies to go bass fishing?

c. What are your rights to live in a "cozy rustic shack", as defined by you, but an "eyesore" as defined by your local county commission?

d. If Toyota decides to build a million square foot manufacturing plant down the lonely country road where you live, do you have any recourse?

e. If you decide to erect a solar array on your house in suburbia, what are your rights to tell the local homeowners association to shove it when they complain because you did not get it "approved"?

f. If you decide to go off the grid, what are your rights to sell your home, given that it might not pass inspection? What are your rights to accumulate "humanure" on your property?

In most of these questions, the problem can be solved with some amount of money. If Exxon drives a truckload of money up to your back door and dumps it in, most people, even the more cantankerous and stubborn, will see the light and move on.

But if they are too cheap, and want to get something for nothing, that is where the problem comes in.

In a lot of these little places out in Texas, the mineral rights and the surface rights have been separated from one another for decades, and for the most part, the people know it. That does not tick them off any less, though.

[Kingcoal]

I think it's a local issue, between you and city hall. I recall a Supreme Court ruling on it a couple years ago regarding the rights of the local municipality to condemn your property so a developer can complete their shopping mall. According to the Constitution, the only entity who can relieve you of your life, liberty or property is a judge and they have to uphold the Constitution. I believe that their decision was that as long as “just compensation” was provided, the locals can pave right over any area they want.

It kind of brings out the fact that there really is no absolute private ownership of property, just freehold ownership. I am periodically harassed by my local municipality for cleaning my sidewalk and trimming my trees. I have restrictions on what I can use my property for and need permission anytime I want to construct anything and I live in a single family house on 1/3 of an acre. In fact, I want to sell my house and move into a nice apartment for those very reasons, though my wife doesn't want to do that. IMO, owning property is much more of a liability than anything else. Property owners are little more than caretakers/investors. If your property appreciates in value, you can sell it and make money, but that's pretty much it. Not many other advantages especially considering the current real estate market. I want to become a blissful idiot like the rest of them and just let all that responsibility be on someone else’s shoulders.

[bshirt]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Kingcoal', 'I') think it's a local issue, between you and city hall. I recall a Supreme Court ruling on it a couple years ago regarding the rights of the local municipality to condemn your property so a developer can complete their shopping mall. According to the Constitution, the only entity who can relieve you of your life, liberty or property is a judge and they have to uphold the Constitution. I believe that their decision was that as long as “just compensation” was provided, the locals can pave right over any area they want.

It kind of brings out the fact that there really is no absolute private ownership of property, just freehold ownership. I am periodically harassed by my local municipality for cleaning my sidewalk and trimming my trees. I have restrictions on what I can use my property for and need permission anytime I want to construct anything and I live in a single family house on 1/3 of an acre. In fact, I want to sell my house and move into a nice apartment for those very reasons, though my wife doesn't want to do that. IMO, owning property is much more of a liability than anything else. Property owners are little more than caretakers/investors. If your property appreciates in value, you can sell it and make money, but that's pretty much it. Not many other advantages especially considering the current real estate market. I want to become a blissful idiot like the rest of them and just let all that responsibility be on someone else’s shoulders.

[Chesire]

Wait until the food price shock this year hits. Along with the property value deflation. Even the lamestream media is predicting a 25 % property value drop. So roughly 9 million local employees will be getting the /boot sometime next year unless towns and cities jack property taxes and locale fees to adjust for that.

How long is it going to be before people figure out that an empty lot will save them money on property taxes. All thos abandoned houses will be found with a garden hose running at the highest point after a few weeks or go up in flames.

When it gets worse and the local Fedstapo demands taxes in whatever form. Have a little bucket or five with something in it that will make their day interesting .

[smileyhouston]

Speaking of food prices, I'm sure that most of you are aware of ethanol being responsible for that. As the stock feed price goes up for corn, so does dairy, beef and products within that domain.

[RdSnt]

I travel quite a bit in the US and have had the topic of Eminent Domain voluntarily brought up by many people, including taxi drivers.
Without exception they expressed outrage that theirs, or someone they know, property was going to be stolen. There was a great deal of anger in the sentiments.
Eminent Domain is seen as "royalty" stealing the land of the subjugated for the benefit of the privileged rich.
I've never seen a case where the "owner" was fairly compensated.
Certainly when land is confiscated by an oil company the "fair market value" that is assessed has nothing to do with the actual value of the property to the oil company.
The use of Eminent Domain is inherently a corrupt practice. If an oil company wished to actually act in the free market they so vigorously defend then they would purchase property on the open market and pay a true market price.

[Tyler_JC]

The problem with "just compensation" is that it accounts for market value but not sentimental value.

There is an ownership bias in play here.

If I buy a baseball ticket to the World Series for $100, I could turn around and sell it for $500 the day of the game. But I won't do it.

And yet I wouldn't have paid even $200 for the ticket back when I bought it, let alone $500.

It's the same with housing. The market value of my house is, say, $500,000 but I wouldn't move for less than a million.

If I was willing to move for $500,000, I would have already done it. Right?