Riggo-toni Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 If only this would go through - I WOULD BE ECSTATIC!!!! http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other 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. # # # Logan Darrow Clements Freestar Media, LLC Phone 310-593-4843 logan@freestarmedia.com http://www.freestarmedia.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 oh the poetic justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fatty P For The Pulitzer Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 That's pretty funny. I'm curious to see what happens with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 I doubt it will work, but I'm rooting for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fjm11516 Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Come on man. This ruling is nothing new. You own land because our governement lets you own land. This ruling does not allow anyone to just come and buy your land. There needs to be a cleareconmic benefit that CANNOT be realized on anyother oiece of property. Others need to be on board and every other option needs to be off the table. This has been done for roads, schools, sporting stadiums, office buildings for years. You want to complain do it about the misinturpretaion of the Constitution in regards to "State sponsered religion". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsNut73 Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Originally posted by redman I doubt it will work, but I'm rooting for them. Same here...I'll be rooting for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMac Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 This must go through!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 That would be awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted June 28, 2005 Author Share Posted June 28, 2005 Originally posted by fjm11516 Come on man. This ruling is nothing new. You own land because our governement lets you own land. Actually, the ruling was the largest ever expansion of the eminent domain statute. Research your facts more carefully, please. The original intent of eminent domain was solely for public projects such as roads. It was expanded in the 50s to allow for the taking of "blighted" areas (slums) to allow for urban renewal projects, provided those areas were in such a state of direpair to be detrimental to the public good. The new ruling allows the government to seize private lands and transfer it to another private enterprise, even if such areas are well-maintained, simply to raise more tax revenue or any other excuse they wish to provide under the guise of economic development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Good policy here. We should punish judges personally and financially for issuing rulings with which we disagree. Hooray for America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Originally posted by Predicto Good policy here. We should punish judges personally and financially for issuing rulings with which we disagree. Hooray for America. Yes! Hooray for America! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky21 Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Best news I've heard all day!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 How is this punishing Souter? It's emminent Domain. He's not being punished. It just happens his land is better used for the public good by people other than him. HOORAY!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Punani2 Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Doesn't the rulings Judges hand down apply to themselves as well Predicto? Or has the Judiciary become so elitist that it feels it's above the law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 If this came about I would be estatic.....for too long the federal government has infringed upon the rights of the individual with no reprocussions.....nothing Souter can do about it...after all the Supreme Court ruled upon it.....and if it provides a better tax base for the area....more power to them..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 So all you guys are in favor of Souter's ruling? Who knew! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 I'm certainly not in favor of his ruling but the fact that ruling is coming back to bite him in the a** is great..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 By the way - something that is often overlooked - State and local governments can restrict these "takings" any way they want. I suspect the use of imminent domain will not spike at the rate in which the ultra conservatives fear. Big gov'ment just ain't gonna take your property to build a mall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted June 28, 2005 Author Share Posted June 28, 2005 Originally posted by T.E.G. Big gov'ment just ain't gonna take your property to build a mall. Uh, that IS almost exactly what happened in CT. I say almost, because there was also a hotel involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyansRangers Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 I love it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Originally posted by Riggo-toni Actually, the ruling was the largest ever expansion of the eminent domain statute. Research your facts more carefully, please. The original intent of eminent domain was solely for public projects such as roads. It was expanded in the 50s to allow for the taking of "blighted" areas (slums) to allow for urban renewal projects, provided those areas were in such a state of direpair to be detrimental to the public good. The new ruling allows the government to seize private lands and transfer it to another private enterprise, even if such areas are well-maintained, simply to raise more tax revenue or any other excuse they wish to provide under the guise of economic development. Riggo, the new ruling does not allow any government to seize private land and give it to their buddies, you're reading too much into the media fatalization of the story. The government can take the land for benifit of the public as a whole, it has been this way for 200 years. Why don't you complain about the land giveaway to the big RR companies when the US was putting thousands of people out of their house in the 1800's. Pfizer part came about way after the initial TWO court rulings were found in favor of the state (well both found the parcel 4a to be constitutional for eminent domain, but the 3 people who live on parcel three won a verdict at the district court level. Pfizer has nothing to do with it, as the initial proposal was for a park, and only 4 people own houses that are not on public land which is earmarked for Pfizer. I don't agree with the law, but I can't argue the interpertation of the law, they got it correct, read the opinions. Now, instead of getting all bent out of shape over the ruling, why don't you start to put pressure on where it needs to be? Give Congress a call and tell them how you feel, it is after all, their responsibility to create the laws, the SCOTUS just interperts them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Originally posted by Funkyalligator I'm certainly not in favor of his ruling but the fact that ruling is coming back to bite him in the a** is great..... What's good for the goose is good for the gander? Do you also think if you steal something you should loose a hand? It's the old code of Hammaurbi which went out of our society around the time of Christ. I would NOT like to see it implemented anytime soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Originally posted by Riggo-toni Uh, that IS almost exactly what happened in CT. I say almost, because there was also a hotel involved. No it was NOT, the land in CT was part of a half a billion dollar revitialization project to generate tourism for their waterfront. There were 14 people who were holding out, but over 90 people agreed to sell. Of those 14, only 4 people own houses on land earmarked for industrial zoning. Do you also believe that a person can hold out for say a dam? Where do you draw the line? Or would you say they could, they just better get a scuba tank? I am only taking this side because the arguments are taking on a bizzare nature of some of the arguments I've seen on this the past few days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 I will PayPal this developer $1,000.00 in support of this move. In fact, think of every person who thinks this Supreme Court decision is as corrupt a decision as can be. Multiply it by the price they are willing to pay to make a statement against this f****ng idiot. This might well be the greatest construction project on the face of the earth. LIBERAL IDIOTS!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoCommiesGo Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 I think thats pretty damn funny. I need to read about it more but from what I can gather that is pretty damn funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.