Process starts for eminent domain aquisition of SCJ David H. Souter's home

[seriousstan]

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.
http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

[Love Bug]

1. Is this a stunt or is this for real?

If so, oh, the irony...

[electropop]

3. Either way, it's beautiful man... n/t

[catnhatnh]

27. I don't think it's for real,YET....

...but let enough support roll in and it sure could become real...Think about the number of citizens pissed over the erosion of personal property rights-(left and right, incidentally)-and divide that number by 9-(the number of supreme court justices) and consider the divine justice of each of us investing 10 or 20 dollars and buying ancestral homes out from under their asses for motels, hotels 7-11's and other more economically viable uses....Though we MUST have at least one converted to a "The Peoples Court" motel and museum...Darrow (this other Darrow is leading the legal way-anyone else like the irony of that name?)and I pray other citizens follow.If you have an idea to get this to freepervillle,go for it....on this one we are united....

[Bluerthanblue]

139. the 'facts' in this article are VERY suspect-

while i voiced my dismay that Souter would vote for this (i've seen his property, and he is a very NATIVE son) i do not believe that the 'facts' are genuine- "Chip Meaney" is NOT the 'code enforcement officer of the town of Weare"- at least not the last time i looked- i don't live in Weare, but i know the town- and i also know Chip-


The only reason i can see for 'why' this court ruled as it did, was as an afirmataion of 'states rights'- and even that is a stretch- Souter really disappointed me on this one- but so did the other justices.

[lynne]

169. Chip Meaney is the Town of Weare Building Inspector -

- if the information on the Weare town website is current. Building inspector's are certainly familiar with building codes and zones. I didn't see an actual position called "code enforcement officer" - maybe I missed it.

I think it's BEAUTIFUL even if it is just a joke. Hell, I'll spend a night there - no question!

[Roland99]

63. I hope it becomes real!

[bpilgrim]

80. it's a stunt & it's for real but it won't go nowhere since SCOTUS never

gave that right to private contractors only local authorities so unless the local authorities have some major renewal project going on there isn't a chance in the world of this going anywhere cept free publicity.

:hi:

peace

[smb]

127. Er, Not So Fast

That distinction doesn't really exist as a practical matter -- local governments delegate that power to contractors all the time.

[eleonora]

2. somebody giving him a taste of his own medicine?

...hmmmm........

[ret5hd]

4. IF this is for real...

the thing to watch for is the price he gets for it...cocmpared not only to his neighbors but also to comparable properties being sold to individuals in the general area.

you can bet that, just like the judge that gets a DUI or a speeding ticket, the law MIGHT stick, but it ain't gonna stick near as deep as on you or i.

[merwin]

5. Sweet sweet irony

[jsamuel]

6. Dramatic Irony

[pilgrimsoul]

10. Yessssssss!!!!!

Bet Souter's position on that ruling doesn't seem like such a good idea to him now, huh? hehehehehe...

The universe is not without a sense of irony. <contented sigh>

[0rganism]

18. or some heavy-duty Poetic Justice

Ya know, a case could be made regarding ANY house that the property would generate more tax revenue if the land were used for a hotel.

[northzax]

83. only, of course

if you can demonstrate a compelling need for said hotel, and that there is nowhere else that the hotel could be located to the same effect.

[smb]

128. No Problem

only, of course, if you can demonstrate a compelling need for said hotel, and that there is nowhere else that the hotel could be located to the same effect.

The "Lost Liberty" theming is a masterstroke -- it nails down that "accept no substitutes" part of the deal. ;)

[Big Kahuna]

7. There's a ranch in Crawford Texas

that would make a great homeless shelter :p

[reality based]

9. Maybe a quarantine facility for mad cow suspects. n/t

[SaveAmerica]

66. or psych hospital, no it has to make money, maybe a dude ranch

[TheDebbieDee]

89. What a great idea, Big Kahuna!

[LiberalFighter]

104. It is not being fully utilized for good economic purposes

He doesn't raise any crops. He doesn't raise livestock. He doesn't have a business that is producing income.

[Canuckistanian]

110. Or the ACLU head office

Or Amnesty International's.

[fob]

112. How about a prison for war criminals?

[LiberallyInclined]

137. actually- it would be a detriment to the local economy to have * leave...

what with all the support/security staff and media that surround the chucklehead of state- they must pump a lot of life into the local economy.

[chaska]

8. PLEASE READ THIS: This is nothing new. During the early days of...

the electrification of the country it was quite common for private companies to take private property. It was legal then, as now.

Don't rag on the supremes for this, they were correct. Fault the legislatures that grant the permissions, and on an individual basis (sometimes it's right, sometimes it's wrong).

[seriousstan]

12. The arguement for a "public good" is much stronger with utilities

than the potential tax income from a Walmart on my farmily homestead.

[K-W]

36. But the supreme court doesnt rule on whether its a good idea

it just rules on the constitutionality. It doesnt matter whether you or one of the justices think that a marina is less good for people than a power line, the reasoning is the same, and that is all the supreme court can rule on, they dont get to rewrite the laws just because the laws are bad.

[smb]

129. "Public Use" Is The Constitutional Issue

"But the supreme court doesnt rule on whether its a good idea it just rules on the constitutionality."

The Court blew it by failing to insist that "public use" means, well, use by the public (or by the government as a public trust). They allowed donation-hungry politicians to get away with redefining "public use" the way Dubya keeps redefining the rationale for the Iraq war (or, to be fair, the way Clinton redefined "sex"). When this sort of semantic shenanigans are allowed to stand, the rule of law itself becomes meaningless.

[Miss Chybil]

14. How do you compare a hotel, or marina, with utilities?

Hotels enrich the lives of a few, utilities - a nation. Apples and oranges.

[chaska]

25. I don't. I'm saying it's Constitutional. I'm not saying it's right. I'm...

saying that the legislatures that allow this are to blame. To fault the supremes is to play right into the hands of the Republicans ... besides being wrong.

[youspeakmylanguage]

53. I must have missed the memo...

...I didn't know that disagreeing with a SCOTUS decision was "playing into the hands" of Republicans.

[youspeakmylanguage]

24. The SCOTUS walked away from not only doing their job...

...but from doing the right thing. They deserve to be impeached for this ruling alone.

This cannot in any way, shape, or form be compared to using private land to build public utilities vital to a community.

[K-W]

34. No, you just dont understand what their job is.

The supreme court is not allowed to second guess the judgement of legislators only determine whether or not they have the power to do what they have done.

You are asking for a violation of the seperation powers to end an outcome of the law you dont like... somehow that seeems vaguely familiar.

And remember, if they can take your house and give it to wal mart, they can take wal mart and give you a house.

[youspeakmylanguage]

38. Wrong, wrong, and wrong...

The job of the SCOTUS is to uphold the Constitution when it is threatened by the boneheaded decisions of local, state, and federal legislators.

The Constitution clearly states in the Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

By upholding stretching the definition of public use to mean "any possibility that a private developer might increase the local tax base by developing the property commercially", the SCOTUS didn't do their job and did not uphold this portion of the Fifth Amendment. In fact, it invalidated it.

Please demonstrate how you could generate more tax revenue with a home than with a Wal-Mart occupying the same property.

I'm guessing you don't own real estate.

[K-W]

39. You are the one playing with the meaning of public use.

There is no reason to think that statement is meant to bar the sale or transfer of public resources attained by E.D. to private hands. You cant possibly back that interpretation up.

As the supreme court explained, economic development has long been considered a public use, this is not a new or expanded definition.

If you dont agree with the legislators, go get them kicked out of office, stop wasting your breath on the justices who had no say on the specifics of the law.

[youspeakmylanguage]

52. You're the one playing with meanings...

When exactly did "public use" ever mean "private commercial development"?

If you mean that building and developing public utilities on private land helped spur economic development by supplying basic services to the surrounding community, then you would be correct to say that constitutes public use.

If you mean that taking a person's home in order for a private developer to build a private business under the assumption that the business may increase local tax revenue is the same as building and developing public utilities, then you are completely wrong.

Voting politicians out of office will do little if they have already taken your property for pennies on the dollar. Try again.

[K-W]

57. It doesnt matter what you think of the term,

You wouldnt call it public use... ok, if you had written the constitution that might matter, but you didnt, so it doesnt. And your interpretation of the phrase is much more specific than the phrase and certainly requires some backup, either precedent or evidence of authors' content, do you have that?

And again, you are arguing that the supreme court draw non-legal destinctions. What is best for the public is a judgement call reserved for elected officials. Your argument is not with the supreme court, it is with the legislators who wrote the law.

It is quite simple, the state can take land as long as it compensates people to do whatever it thinks is in the public interest. It is up to the voters to hold legislators accountable to thier interests, not the supreme court.

[youspeakmylanguage]

60. Nice deflection...

...but I'm the one with history on my side. If local governments throughout our history had free reign to seize property in the way this ruling allows them to we would be living in a much different country than we live in today.

YOU need to demonstrate the legal precedent for local governments to seize private property and then handing it over to commercial developers, all in the name of supposedly increasing tax revenues.

[K-W]

64. Deflection? What deflection?

"YOU need to demonstrate the legal precedent for seizing private property then handing it over to commercial developers."

No, I actually dont since nothing in the constitution suggests that the state cannot take the land they siezed and then give it to someone. But if you want to see the precedent, might I point you in the direction of the supreme court ruling which documents the precedents.

"...but I'm the one with history on my side. If local governments in this country had free reign to seize property in the way this ruling allows them to we would be living in a much different country than we live in today."

That is some of the worst logic I have read in a while. Why dont you learn the historical facts before making wild assumptions based on what you imagine to be the results of such a law.

[youspeakmylanguage]

68. Wow...

No, I actually don't since nothing in the constitution suggests that the state cannot take the land they seized and then give it to someone. But if you want to see the precedent, might I point you in the direction of the supreme court ruling which documents the precedents.

Check the Fifth Amendment again. Also read the dissenting opinions and the precedents they cite.

That is some of the worst logic I have read in a while. Why don't you learn the historical facts before making wild assumptions based on what you imagine to be the results of such a law would be.

What historical facts should I learn? It's interesting that you are part of a minuscule minority and yet you expect me to justify what I believe with "historical facts" and accuse me of making "wild assumptions"?

Give me one example where a local government traditionally seized private land in order to hand it over to a private developer. Just one example.

[K-W]

71. Nowhere in the fifth ammendment does it say what you said

You are once again isisting that public use means that it must stay in public hands, an outlandish and completely unsupported interpretation.

"What historical facts should I learn? It's interesting that you are part of a minuscule minority and yet you expect me to justify what I believe with "historical facts" and accuse me of making "wild assumptions"?

You seem to think that the opinion of forum posters is valid evidence of the facts, it isnt.

I expect you to justify your claims. And whether or not people agree with your wild assumption it was a wild assumption. You argued that such power must produce a different reality than we have now, that is, even if every human being on the planet agreed with you, a wild assumption.

"Give me one example where a local government traditionally seized private land in order to hand it over to a private developer. Just one example."

Why? You havent explained what this proves, since you havent supported your creative interpretation of the constitution. Until you can prove that "public use" means "this property must stay in the commons forever" it doesnt matter who the government hands the land over to.

[youspeakmylanguage]

74. Floating farther and farther away from the realm of logic...

I expect you to justify your claims. And whether or not people agree with your wild assumption it was a wild assumption. You argued that such power must produce a different reality than we have now, that is, even if every human being on the planet agreed with you, a wild assumption.

So...if I were to assume that if we had radically altered the definition of "public use" as it has been historically applied in this country, thereby radically undermining private property rights when this country was founded, we would have the same reality we have now...that would not a "wild assumption"?

You seem to think that the opinion of forum posters is valid evidence of the facts, it isn't.

When did I ever make that claim? I'm basing the evidence of the facts on the dissenting opinion in this case, which happens to be right on target.

[K-W]

79. You still have yet to back your legal interpretation.

"So...if I were to assume that if we had radically altered the definition of "public use" as it has been historically applied in this country, thereby radically undermining private property rights when this country was founded, we would have the same reality we have now...that would not a "wild assumption"?"

That isn't what you said. First of all. You said that it would be a radically different country now, not that it wouldn't have been the same.

Secondly nobody has radically altered the definition of public use. They just don't agree with your definition (and your definition has NEVER been used)

It is a wild assumption to claim that you can recognize from the nature of our society, what the law must have been all the way through. Which is what you argued. Your evidence that the law hasn't always been this way, is the way you THINK the world would look if it had.

"When did I ever make that claim? I'm basing the evidence of the facts on the dissenting opinion in this case, which happens to be right on target."

Do you read your own posts?

"It's interesting that you are part of a minuscule minority and yet you expect me to justify what I believe with "historical facts" "

You use public opinion to support your argument and claim that I am unreasonable in expecting you to produce facts when you are supported by the majority.

Which facts from the dissenting opinion prove that public use means perpetual public ownership?

[youspeakmylanguage]

81. See the below post...

here.

[Occulus]

146. China? n/t

[smb]

131. Words Mean Things

"if you had written the constitution that might matter, but you didnt, so it doesnt"

"the state can take land as long as it compensates people to do whatever it thinks is in the public interest"

If you had written the Constitution, it might say "public interest" rather than "public use" -- but you didn't, so it doesn't.

[Hosnon]

98. When you say that economic development has "long been"

considered a public use...what do you mean by that?

It does not appear to be the original intent of the phrase.

[K-W]

103. Good point, you are right about that.

I dont know why I wrote that, I think I meant public opinion has long seen economic development as a public good.

Public use to me is pretty general and I see nothing in the term public use that restricts that public use to use where the public retains ownership. As long as the user is the public, and the use is arguably for the public interest, I really cant see any angle for the supreme court to overrule it just because the particular public usage ends in the property moving to private hands. How is that any more or less constitutional than any other public property moving into private hands?

[Hosnon]

108. I agree, along with the court, that the ENTIRE public does not

have to use it in order for it to be of "public use." However, it is a major tenet of our system of property law, which the majority also acknowledges, that the government should not take land from A and give it to B, if A and B are both private landowners.

The only times that the Court has felt comfortable were when public policy so outweighed individual property rights (such as the Hawaii transfer).

As to your question...the problem is that first that "public property" was private property. I have no problem with the government selling its land to private individuals. However, I do have a problem with the government using E.D. to take land from one landowner for the PURPOSE of selling it to another landowner.

On edit: It seems that I recall that the Court in the past when allowing E.D. for the purpose of land transfer between private individuals was very reluctant to do so and cautioned against expansion, this sort of expansion in particular. Public policy must almost require that the land be transfered for a transfer from A to B to be justified.

[smb]

130. "Public Use"

The term "public use" includes basic infrastucture. It is a matter of policy outside the purview of Constitutional review whether such infrastructure is state-owned or privately-owned.

This is not, however, a license to stretch the term "public use" in a way that makes Mister Fantastic look like a cigar-store wooden Indian statue. The Court erred in permitting the latter to stand.

[catnhatnh]

119. And just for fun throw into the balance-

...life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and a little bit about the right to be secure in their homes AND businesses...you don't get to read excerpts and apply your "wisdom" only to the one sentence-you are suppossed to read (especially strict constructionists) the intent of the signers.You tell me the signers pictured a voracious pharmacuetical Co or even a Taco Bell looking for a waterview and high traffic location and I'll buy the argument...Picture a news head line "Paul Revere out-High Volume Tatoo Parlor to take place at popular Boston Site...."

[Mairead]

164. If you look at the actual wording of the Amendment...

...all it forbids is taking for public use without comp. By a strict interpretation, it neither forbids taking for private use nor requires that the victim in such a case be compensated.

[Hosnon]

93. That is the view of the majority. The dissent said, and I agree,

that in order to determine the Constitutionality of an action by the legislature, their judgments must be analyzed.

The legislature said X is a public use. The courts have an obligation to determine whether or not X is in fact a public use.

Whether or not it is a good public use or not is irrelevant, the Constitution makes no such stipulation.

[SoCalDem]

56. Common good-electricity, OK...Common good-condos...not OK

There's a BIG difference.. ANY rich person could do MORE with your property that YOU can.. This sets the precedent, that someone with money can buy anything they want, without the approval of the "seller"...if he knows which wheels to grease.

A town council/city council/mayor, can with the stroke of a pen, take your property from you...for a mall..a condo complex...a walmart...even a parking lot, if they determine that the city/town could get more money from the "new use", than what your property taxes bring in..

This is also an end-around to facilitate higher property taxes, folks.. Everuy municipality can now "threaten" the beefed up use of eminent domain, UNLESS taxes are raised..

[K-W]

61. The supreme court doen't get to second guess what is 'good'

Judgements about what is and is not in the interest of the people is reserved for legislators, not jurists. The supreme court can only determine if the law is meant to serve the public, not what the odds of succes are.

You are exactly right, the state has the power to take your land. It also has the power to arrest you, shoot you, draft you, tax you, etc etc

So the challenge is, how do we remove the ability of the wealthy to take undemocratic control over the government to serve thier interests and use all of the above powers to serve thier interests instead of ours.

Why is everyone focusing on the fact that the government has power rather than how we stop it from abusing this power?

And am I the only one with enough forsight to imagine a time when we may need eminant domain to reverse the damage the right is doing economically?

The power isnt the problem, the corruption of our representation is.

[NickB79]

118. The Supreme Court ruled slavery was legal in the 1800's

That doesn't mean they can't realize their previous decisions were wrong at a later date.

[rinsd]

166. Except that now public good now equals higher tax revenue (nt)

[SquireJons]

11. Too bad it's not Thomas' property.

Or Scalia's. Now that would be sweet. Or better yet, how about the home that Rehnquist is convalescing in?

[RobinA]

17. They Voted

with the dissent.

[Lowell]

13. Ain't Karma Great

It didn't take long for this to become personal for Souter.

[htuttle]

15. Instant karma’s gonna get you

Gonna knock you right on the head!

[NYC]

16. This law is so galling, I can hardly believe it.

[Ron Mexico]

19. I saw this on, of all places, World Net Daily

as I was doing my recon of Repug sites. This is the only time I have ever read an article on that site and said "man, I hope this is true."

The WND link is at http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45029 .

The Freeper thread about this is at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1432420/posts .

When's the last time you could look at either site without wanting to throw up?

That's what we've come to. Fucking sick.

[slackmaster]

20. When large numbers of liberals and conservatives agree on something

Well, that's really something.

[Ron Mexico]

21. I can't remember the last time it happened. Seriously. Unless

you count that we both seemed to be happy that the USA beat the USSR in Lake Placid in 1980.

[smb]

133. LOL!

Even FReepers are saying the exact same things most of us are saying (right down to "even the DU crowd knows this is wrong").

Better carry an umbrella to ward off falling pig crap.

[youspeakmylanguage]

22. All I can say is...

:spray::woohoo::rofl::applause::party::toast:

[insane_cratic_gal]

23. Ah I'm from Weare NH

I don't live there now but My parents do.


Let me tell you all now this was done as a means to make a point and never will be approved. There Are NO hotels in the town and no need for hotels in the town!! There isn't a real grocery store, the nearest one is a 20 min car ride.

But I like that he's going to try anyway

Oh and on edit.. one of the board men on the council is my Mom's neighbor. I'm going to visit in July.. I think I'll pay him a visit and support Clements.

[stevedeshazer]

29. Good to know, thanks for the insight

Locals always know the scoop.

[Bluerthanblue]

140. please, ask you Mom who is code

enforcement officer, cause unless there is more than one 'Chip Meaney' in the general vicinity, they are talking out of thier butt-


thanks- i know 'Chip'- and i know Weare, used to be a WONDERFUL 'hippy shop' there called the "Far End" - ask your mom if she ever went there, it actually was in Deering, but had to go through Weare to get there- i LOVED the shop. And the folks who ran it.

[insane_cratic_gal]

173. Chip is New on the board

I asked her about him this morning. She said, "oh he's some new guy they elected."

I never went to that shop, I've been to Deering for lake! =) Horace is always mobbed and the beach is far smaller then Deering's.

When I go to visit, I'll see if it's still open.

[Megahurtz]

26. HA - HA!!!

:rofl:

[dbonds]

28. If there was ever an issue we could find common ground with freepers

This would be it. NO ONE likes this ruling.

[stevedeshazer]

30. Limbaugh talked about this on his show today.

Yes, that Limbaugh. I almost drove off the road.

[K-W]

37. It was a lose lose case for liberals.

Two choices, limit the scope of eminant domain handing a property rights victory to the wealthy right or allow a disgusting but arguably constitutional law go through.

Unfortunately the right has succeeded in turning liberals ire on thier own justices rather than on the local legislators who wrote this law.

And really, the problem here is not the justices, it is that in this country it is accepted that the only way to give people a life is to bribe a company into hiring them. Scapegoating the supreme court for that is pointless.

[youspeakmylanguage]

59. Wrong...

From your post...

Two choices, limit the scope of eminent domain handing a property rights victory to the wealthy right or allow a disgusting but arguably constitutional law go through.

From the Washington Post...

While municipal leaders say O'Connor's view is unrealistic, people who have fought eminent domain say it's already here.

"Now that they've got carte blanche to do whatever they want, they will," said Dick Saha, 75, who in May won a six-year fight to keep Coatesville, Pa., from seizing his farm.

"We have four horses. My two daughters have some land we gave them and the grandkids come down and ride the horses," Saha said. The town, he said, "decided they needed our property for a golf course."

I wonder if this poor SOB knew he was part of the "wealthy right". I'm sure it was the "poor left" that was interested in using his land to develop a golf course.

[K-W]

67. Umm, that isnt what I meant, sheesh.

The right has LONG sought to limit eminant domain. You are missing the big picture, the fundemental nature of property in our society.

The right wants to change the fundemental nature of our law so that the government cannot interfere with property rights, because, of course, the wealthy own a ton of property and this is where they derive thier power and opulance.

The right would have no problem sacrificing some property opportunities for such a major victory in the class struggle as the conservative justices showed with thier votes.

Look, all this means is that the law is constitutional, now it is up to us to get our legislators to write laws that ensure eminant domain is used in the way we want it to be used, thats how our system works.

[youspeakmylanguage]

70. LOL...

I don't even know where to start. I know where you need to end, though - with the spell checker.

The right has LONG sought to limit eminant domain. You are missing the big picture, the fundemental nature of property in our society.

What fundamental nature is that? I always though the "fundamental nature" of private property was that it was property that belonged, privately, to an individual. I also thought a part of it's "fundamental nature" was the fact that the owner was allowed to develop it (within reason), live on it, work on it, and sell it for a profit when that person decided to sell it.

I thought the fundamental nature of Communism was that the government owned the property and the government controlled who lived, worked, and developed the property.

The right wants to change the fundemental nature of our law so that the government cannot interfere with property rights, because, of course, the wealthy own a ton of property and this is where they derive thier power and opulance.

:rofl:
I always thought the wealthy derived their "power and opulance" from their, well, wealth. Yet isn't it interesting that part of the American Dream is that anyone can prosper and purchase their own house and property. I own my house with my fiance and I can assure you, we are far from being wealthy.

You have no fundamental grasp on the tenants of property rights or the constitution. I'm guessing you rent.

[K-W]

72. Bringing up spelling in a discussion is a pretty petty swipe.

Perhaps you should spend less time worrying about my spelling and more time learning history and logic.

"I always thought the wealthy derived their "power and opulance" from their, well, wealth. "

Yah, wealth has nothing to do with property...

"Yet isn't it interesting that part of the American Dream is that anyone can prosper and purchase their own house and property. I own my house with my fiance and I can assure you, we are far from being wealthy."

Where in my post did I say that only wealthy people own property? I never said anything remotely like that, where on earth did you come up with that?

"You have no fundamental grasp on the tenants of property rights or the constitution. I'm guessing you rent."

Yah, because putting a down payment on a house automatically makes you a constitutional scholar.

[youspeakmylanguage]

78. Deleted by the poster...

[K-W]

85. Right... EOM

[youspeakmylanguage]

90. Read my edited post...

...I haven't plonked you yet.

[K-W]

97. Friend, all I did was disagree with you.

We were both stubborn and condescending. We both thought we were right and we both argued as such.

We both hate this law, we just disagree on the constitutionality and some issues surrounding that. I dont understand your attack on me, but I hope we can put this behind us.

[youspeakmylanguage]

101. When you have a personal stake in an issue, it gets personal...

My fiance and I own a small, 70-year old house in a working class urban neighborhood of Charlotte. Our neighborhood could somewhat reasonably be considered "blighted" and since it is located on a direct "corridor" into the middle of the city its very attractive to developers.

We love our house and if it was taken away from us by force we would be devastated. There are many predatory developers in Charlotte that would have no problem turning people out of their homes.

Luckily NC state law forbids using eminent domain in this fashion so we're ok for now, but all the state legislature has to do is change the law. Our state politicians have a history of being batsh*t crazy and our local politicians do everything except grab their ankles to attract business, so our current legal protection gives me little comfort.

I see this as a personal attack on my property and, by extension, an attack on my liberty. I think a lot of other people see it in the same fashion. That is why so many people have become uncivil when discussing it.

[youspeakmylanguage]

105. See this post...

here.

[youspeakmylanguage]

96. Thank you...

I won't plonk you after all. I just flew off the handle.
That hasn't happened in a long time.
I apologize for what I said. I still think you are wrong but I had no right to become uncivil about it.

[dcfirefighter]

86. THis is exactly the attitude that keeps us from progressing

I own my tiny bit of property (a piece of paper that says this bit of land is yours), and so I buy into this legal fiction and perpetuate it with my votes, while the wealthy own an incredibly disproportionate amount of valuable lands. Paying another individual for land values is a tax - one who's revenues DON'T go to the public good.

At least a portion of those land values (values derived from society and nature, not the owner) should be returned to society in the form of taxes. Such taxes do not add to the cost of ownership, but in fact, lower the cost of ownership.

[SidDithers]

149. When your arguments fail...

criticize spelling.

That's a sure way win a debate. :eyes:

Sid

[420inTN]

116. Property rights is fundamental to our county

That's why when the country first started, the only people with voting rights were property owners. Women, slaves, and free men who have not reached their majority (age 21) could not vote because (for one reason) they were not allowed to own property.

[smb]

134. So?

"Umm, that isnt what I meant, sheesh."

You can protest all day long that you meant this power to be a tool of social justice rather than a weapon for the wealthy and powerful to screw over the masses, but that's as irrelevant as BushCo's protestations that they meant the the Iraqis to scatter rose petals at our soldiers' feet rather than set car bombs for them.

In the reality-based world, it's the actual results that matter.

[Massachusetts]

31. eminent domain aquisition

History ALWAYS has a way of repeating itself.


http://www.bio.umass.edu/biology/conn.river/quabbinres.html

[woosh]

32. live free or die.

[Cronus Protagonist]

33. Hahahahaa

:kick:

[Rainscents]

35. LOL...

He deserve what he gets! :rofl:

[KarenInMA]

40. NH group wants to build hotel on Justice Souter's land!!

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.

<snip>


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."

:bounce:

http://freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

[TroglodyteScholar]

41. L O L (n/t)

[seriousstan]

42. Dupe...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1588647

[LibertyorDeath]

43. LMAO

:)

[Sydnie]

44. When can I make a reservation?

:rofl:

[AllyCat]

45. My God, I hope this is not a joke. That would be righteous, no?

[Warpy]

46. Too bad it's a joke

It really would serve him right for that ruling. He may have been constitutionally correct in placing city council greed over the rights of citizens to their homes, but ye gods! What a stinker of a ruling!

[Occulus]

51. It could NOT be a joke.

It would serve him right, no?

Why not? This is a GREAT idea. Get funds together, and target private land 'owned' by the justices who made that reprehensible ruling.

Take THEIR land. See how THEY like it.

I'm ALL for this.

[Bill McBlueState]

47. that's *so* new hampshire. *l*

n/t

[converted_democrat]

48. There is a God.........

and he has a great sense of humor.

[mccoyn]

49. I'm planning my visit now! -nt

[insane_cratic_gal]

62. Bring Bug Spray

It's hicky and buggy there!

[Supersedeas]

50. Private Business Interests UNITE

[SoCalDem]

54. I suggested this when they ruled.. go after Beverly Hills too

Prop 13 means that lots of those "landed estates" in Brentwood/Beverly Hills etc, are sitting on a "pile 'o real estate", and not paying their "fair share".. That land could bring in BIG BUCKS if it were to be "developed".

Why should the little guy who bought land in the 60's, only to see the town catch up to him, have to lose what he's paid for? Let the rich have a few bites too :)

[Straight Shooter]

55. I seriously doubt if Souter would suffer as most of us would suffer.

I've spent years and years and years, scrimped and denied other little pleasures just to maintain and upkeep my house, make improvements slowly, over time, with lots of sweat equity, not least of which was a great love of the landscaping project (which is no big deal but I tended to it with great respect for the earth and trees and flowers.)

If someone were to take my home, they would be stealing part of my heart and soul. Souter, big deal, maybe some memories, but he has the means to go somewhere else with ease. Not that simple for the rest of us. It might be poetic justice if his house were taken, but it would not be equitable poetic justice.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

58. And the foolish will cheer this

and hopefully, once they are done cheering, they will remedy their ignorance and realize that the SCOTUS majority ruling in the eminent domain case- put the power where it belonged: at the state and local government - level NOT the Federal.
So Weare is free to act as it should.
Weare, New Hampshire can decide what is best for itself, and so if it decides to act with spiteful vengence simply to appease a bunch of rightwing conservative government hating nutcases, then so be it. And if it makes you feel good to enable and support the conservative, government-hating, LIBERAL-hating, Rush Limbaugh crowd, then so be it.
But cheer on if you so choose and do enjoy it.
Cheer on.

Weare, New Hampshire homepage

[insane_cratic_gal]

65. government hating nutcases

I thought that was us? =p


Oh this is hardly an Dem vs Republican issue, this is a family vs a "wal mart" issue.

[northzax]

77. please find me one single instance

where someone has lost property so that wal mart can build a store.

huh.

If there was a plan to flatten your neighborhood and build some new development, who would you rather have making the decision, your city council or a federal judge 1,000 miles away? you do get to vote for your city council right?

I will bet you that this will only happen on drastic rebuilds of blighted neighborhoods, places that, quite frankly, can do with a knocking down.

[MadHound]

102. Your wish, my command

This happens quite frequently friend. I just googled "wal mart eminent domain" and got a ton of hits. Here are a few:
<http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/independent_business/walmart_eminent_domain.html> I remember earlier this year that these shop owners lost their case
<http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/1003/21alabaster.html>
<http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?sid=152041&nid=5>

And the funny thing is that most WalMarts work out sweetheart deals with the city or county authorities where they're given tax breaks. So much for bringing in additional tax revenue.:eyes:

Quite frankly this decision stinks. It is now pitting relatively powerless homeowners against city or county officials, who are backed with all of the money and commiserate power of such corporations as WalMart and Costco. Talk about an unequal fight:eyes: Sorry, but the justices who voted for this abomination had the power to limit this sort of abuse, while still retaining the power of eminent domain for the good of society. All they had to do was stick to the phrase "public use" in the Fifth Amendment, and all would have been good. But now they have opened up the flood gates of corporate greed, and now we all own our homes merely on the whim of some corporate greedhead. Not comforting, not at all. And quite frankly, this is quite unAmerican.

For those of you who are in favor of this, stop looking at this through partisan and ideological glasses. This is a bad decision, no matter who made it, and that it was done by so called progressives only means that we need to forcefully repudiate, not continue to make excuses for it.

[northzax]

106. I stand corrected

there are several places where people are thinking about using eminent domain to put in a wal-mart. I would not agree with either the Ogden or the Denver case. But there are, in fact, times when a private entity can be for the public good. And there are times when the greater good is aided by the reconstruction of a section of town. sorry, but that's true.

the handouts to WalMart are a different story, have nothing to do with ED.

[MadHound]

109. Sorry, but it is against the letter and spirit of the Constitution

"Public Use" is the key phrase, and nowhere do I see what public good can come from sticking up another WalMart. Like I said, most communities make sweetheart deals with WalMart, granting the store a tax holiday for years, and in some cases forever. Therefore, the increase in tax revenues goes out the window. Providing jobs? Yeah right. It has been shown time and again that everytime a new WalMart is built that for every job WalMart creates, 1.5 jobs in the surrounding community are lost. In addition, the jobs WalMart does create are substantially lower paying than the jobs lost in the surrounding community, in fact the pay is so much lower that the employees qualify for Medicaid and foodstamps. Gee, another burden shouldered by the taxpayer.

So let's see here, no tax revenue, net job loss, increased burden on the taxpayer, what exactly is the public good, much less the public use in this oft repeated scenario?

[northzax]

136. gee, and here I thought

I said that WalMart wouldn't meet the test, and the examples given certainly didn't meet the test. I beleive I also said that the tax holidays given to WalMart are a different issue (they are) and a bad idea.

I can think, right now, of several times where the public good can be served by a private construction project. You have to remember that ED is on a case by case basis, it's not a one size fits all scenario. I was just working on a project where a row of severly dilapidated row houses, all rentals and all an eyesore, barely making code and run by a man widely viewed as a slumlord, were demolished to make way for a larger building. As part of the agreement (remember, the District doesn't play by the same rules as everyone else) every single resident that had a lease on that property was provided with an apartment in the building , with the same rent plus the neighborhood got 100 new units of modern, up to code housing. Literally, everyone wins, including the previous owner who got rid of property that was unsellable and was compensated above what he could have resonably expected. Now this was not a formal ED case, it never got that far because the landlord gave up the fight as part of a settlement in another legal matter, but the city could have, and should have, gone that far. But it is a specialised case, you cannot go and apply that case to every time someone wants to build something, but in this case, it was acceptable.

[MadHound]

158. Granted, there are times when ED IS used for the betterment of a city

But there are also many times when it is used to help along crony capitalism, and the benefactors of ED are few, and not the people who have their property taken from them. The trouble is that the Supreme Court really opened the barn door to ED abuse, and in essence put everybody's home at risk of ED. Since it is now codified that increased tax revenue can be considered as "public good", virtually every home owner's property is at risk, since the property tax from a house can never compete with the tax revenue from a business.

And while DC may have an uncorrupted record regarding the use of ED, the vast majority of communities don't. In fact ED has a long history of being abused in this country, and this ruling is only going to lengthen it. Most cities, towns and counties pay much less for properties under ED than what that property would fetch on the free market, and many local governments are not above deliberately blighting an area in order to bring prices down even further.

I think that the court seriously fucked this one up. Rather than sticking with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, they opted for the broad definition, and thus every property owner is at risk of having property seized at the whim of some corporation. While they preserved states rights, sometimes that is a bad idea, as with slavery, and now ED. It is widely known that a lot, if not a majority, of local and state officials are easily corruptible when it comes to ED issues. The Court should have tried to curb that, instead, the put all property owners at risk. Sorry, but I think that you're on the wrong side of this issue.

[northzax]

160. fair enough

but you can also doas Virginia has done, and ban the use of ED for development projects. I would wager that there will be multiple state laws passed in the next few months banning this practice. Which is probably good. I just don't see the Consitutional basis for banning it, which is what the Court addressed.

[MadHound]

161. Well our govenor, the Boy Blunder(Matt Blunt)

Has heard the outcry in the state, and is going to get a task force together to study the issue. Of course this is going to take up to a year, according to his spokesperson, so until then, everybody in Missouri is completely at the mercy of corrupt local governments and the tender mercies of developers. Hopefully Blunt and our legislators will do the right thing on this, I think they will for there is widespread bipartisan fear and loathing of this ruling.

I'm not for banning ED, I'm not even against using ED to benefit private corporations, as in the case with railroad right of ways, and the TVA, etc. What I am against is this broad brush approach that makes increased tax revenue part of the description "public good", and allowing property seized under ED to go to private corporations with no other benefit to the public than possibly increased tax revenue and jobs. That to me is just plain wrong.

[northzax]

162. and the beauty of it all

is that we can disgree without actually shooting eachother- (waterpistols at dawn?)

[smb]

138. Two Issues

"But there are, in fact, times when a private entity can be for the public good."

Basic infrastructure (e.g. roads, power lines, dams) fall within the standard definition of "public use" even if, as a matter of public policy, they are privately owned utilities. This does not logically justify the effective Wite-Out of the term "public use" by allowing private development in general to use eminent domain.

"And there are times when the greater good is aided by the reconstruction of a section of town."

When buildings are genuinely "blighted", the long-established police powers of local jurisdictions permit condemnation on safety grounds (to abate a fire hazard, vermin habitat, etc). Just compensation in such cases pretty much boils down to the value of the land (minus the cost of demolition if the jurisdiction really cares to press that point).

[northzax]

144. aesthetics also fits within 'public use'

DC, for instance, has a rule that no building may be higher than the dome of the Capitol (except, of course, the Cathedral and the Cairo (an apartment building grandfathered in) isn't that the taking of private property for no other reason than aesthetics?

My home towm, Portland, has height restrictions of, I think, 35 stories, downtown. Is that illegal?

How about New York which has de facto height restrictions, although you can get around it by buying air rights? illegal?

Or the Conservative's favourite toy, the Endangered Species Act? unilateral restrictions on what you can do with the property you own, that's a taking, and yet, we define it as being in the public good.

Is not housing basic infrastructure? Is is ok to use ED to build a museum, ballpark, school, powerplant, but not sustainable housing? What about an urban neighborhood without a grocery store, if everyone on one block sells, but not the Schmidts, can they hold up a grocery store for everyone? Can I make that a public health issue?

Look, ED should be rare and a last resort, but there are times, only a few, but times when private development is a community good. There is nothing in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution that says it isn't.

[smb]

153. Zoning != Eminent Domain

Zoning pertains to what may potentially be built. As you note, existing buildings were grandfathered in your example (thereby avoiding any "takings" issue).

While there are lots of gray areas for courts to sort out, I would expect that a re-zoning that would completely shut down an existing building would qualify as a "taking" which would have to meet a public-use test and for which compensation is required.

[northzax]

159. existing buildings, but not existing land

and zoning is a form of eminent domain, that's how it, and the ESA, and the SWDA and everything else that infringes on private property rights, is legally justified.

What about ESA regulations? or re-zoning that diminishes the potential bulding value of a piece of property? I have a friend who's family owns a farm in Virgina. They get offers all the time from developers who want to turn their 150 acres into townhouses and mcmansions. They get offers of say, 15 million dollars (that's a guesstimate) if the country changed the zoning and said that you can only subdivide to 20 acre lots (as my girlfriend's family farmtown in Wisconsin has) their value diminishes greatly. All of a sudden, it's probably only worth 7-8 million. but in half. do they deserve compensation? Is that a taking?

What if the stream that runs through the farm is declared the sole remaining habitat for the North American Fire Squirrel (just an example) and you can't build within 100 feet. Again, their value is diminished. What to do? Can the government say "sorry guys, you cannot alter that bit of property in any way" or do they have to provide compensation? land has value, jsut as buildings do.

By the wy, I would argue that there are times when land can be rezoned. In fact, at some time all land was rezoned, the value of land is, for the most part, in it's potential value, not it's current one.

[insane_cratic_gal]

113. Walmart vs the little guy

Dorothy Littrell/ Property Owner: "I am not going to sit by and let it happen without screaming all the way down."

Milton Rodriguez/ Property Owner: "We've spoken to them and they don't want to listen to the people around here. It's all about the money."

Cris Rodriguez/ Property Owner: "I think the city leaders are looking down here and they're not seeing people or businesses. They're seeing dollar signs."

But Ogden's mayor, Matthew Godfrey, says eminent domain was used only as a last resort, when a few property owners refused to sell.

He says: "We don't like to do this. We feel bad about the people who don't want to sell, but I think it's in the greater good that we redevelop this area."

Bill Glasmann/ Wal-Mart Opponent: "We've got a Wal-Mart what, maybe 15 blocks to the north of us, and 30 blocks to the south of us. And now they want to put a big box down here at the expense of these people."

[northzax]

147. I guess I can say it again

these examples are examples of abuse of the system. I'm sure I can list 500 others if I go looking for them. That is why the decision should be made by people as close to the voters as possible, those who have the greatest accountability to the smallest number of people. And it should always be made by people accountable to elections, not buearocrats.

If you don't like your local government, do something about it. run for office, make noise, get your local media involved. It is much easier for you to effect change at the local level than at the state or federal, don't you think?

These decisions whould be hard, and public.

[hughee99]

115. I think that many people's belief is that

NEITHER the city council OR the federal judge 1,000 miles away should be making this decision. I personally believe that this is equivalent to the government (regardless of whether it's federal, state or local) deciding to screw the individual for the "benefit" of the many, and the benefit may be speculative at best.

I'm willing to bet that AT FIRST, this is only used in a way that seems acceptable. Over time, deals will be made that push the boundary of "public benefit".

We oppose much of the repuke's agenda (and I'm not claiming that this is a repuke thing) like the Patriot Act because of the great potential for abuse. I see this as having as great, if not greater, a potential for abuse as anything the repukes have done.

Be careful in the future if you try to oppose a local or state government, they can run you out of town.

[nolabels]

73. I would say it puts it in the hands of legal THIEVES

Most anybody can understand why thievery and fraud are against the law. How and why it is done is ancillary details. The SCOTUS latest decisions are just a reflection of a deteriorating system of federalism that was never meant to be in the first place. The public in general is being gamed from all ends

Code of Hammurabi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi

http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/hammurabi.htm

[northzax]

75. indeed

many states have laws forbidding this, Virginia just passed one. I would wager that New Hampshire is right behind them, if it doesn't already have one.

Eminent Domain, for the public good, can include private use. I really don't see what's so bad about it. Yes, it sucks to have the government force you to sell your property, and wise states will put limits on the financial rewards that a developer can make from the project, but private uses can, in certain cases, be for the public good. I bet this will happen very rarely, ED'ing property is ugly, no politician wants to have to do it very often.

to everyone screaming about it: Justice Souter votes to uphold Roe v. Wade. Should we assult him and force and pregnant women in his family to have abortions? it's the same thing.

[K-W]

88. Aparently liberals want the seperation of powers violated

just to overide a law they dont like.

And when they dont get thier way, they villify judges.

Novel.

[smb]

143. Say What?

Aparently liberals want the seperation of powers violated just to overide a law they dont like.

Unless you're one of those folks who still grumbles about Marbury v Madison, requiring the government to obey the Constitution is the main power of the judicial branch. How on earth can it be a "separation of powers" issue to criticise them for abdicating their responsibility to do so?

[smb]

135. Nope

The whole POINT of having a Constitution is to remove certain issues from the ordinary give and take of politics. In a free country, that includes protection of basic individual liberties (such as one's private property).

[SidDithers]

152. Well said...nt

Sid

[dissent1977]

69. Now we need private developers to ask for the other four justices land

[mmonk]

76. bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[neuvocat]

95. I concurr:

"bwahahahahahahahahahahahahaha"

[TexasLawyer]

82. Daily Show material--

If anyone has Comedy Central connections, Jon Stewart and gang need to be filled in about the "Lost Liberty Hotel".

[onenote]

84. other than K-W, have any of you actually read the court's opinion?

Because if you had, you'd see that what the court did was consistent with and, indeed, dictated by, prior precedent and that the parade of horribles imagined by Justice O'Connor in her dissent are exactly that: imagined. For example, did you know that more than 20 years ago the Supreme Court upheld a decision by the state of Hawaii to take property owned by a few leaseholders in the State and distribute it to lessees because it was deemed to be a public use to break up the family oligopolies that owned most of the land in the State? Or to take a perfectly nice Department Store and turn it over to a redevelopment group as part of an effort to improve a larger, partially "blighted" area? And what about the taking of private property for stadiums or railroads, not owned by the government but owned by private corporations?

This was a tough situation but keep in mind it wasn't just that the projected use of the property would improve the tax base over the current use. It was that the area where the property was located was economically depressed -- unemployment was double the rate in the rest of the state and the population had declined to its lowest point in 80 years, largely due to the closing of federal facility. The state appropriated money for a development plan and the property was taken before it was known which of several applicants to develop the property would be chosen. So it wasnt' a case of taking the property to give to a known entity. In other words, the joke effort to take SOuter's property wouldn't survive under the current court ruling anyway so I'm not sure what point it is supposed to be making.

onenote

[northzax]

87. shhh, we're getting in touch with our inner freepers

stop throwing logic into the equation. really.

[Hosnon]

91. Yea, along with the dissents...and I disagree even more with the

opinion of the majority. The Hawaii and the other example (forget where) were examples of extreme negatives to the community. One dissent (O'Conner I believe) pointed out that that is not the case here.

The houses in the latest case were not a negative to the community, merely not as positive as the development will be. The SC followed precedent a step further than it seems to me you can go and remain true to the original intent of "public use." Courts don't HAVE to follow precedent, they can look back to intent and correct any mistakes previous courts have made.

They should have done that here and pulled back a bit on the slowly but substantially broadening definition of "public use."

[youspeakmylanguage]

92. You can justify it all you want...

...but have you actually read what these people are being put through? They are being forced out of their homes against their will.

Some of us still believe that in a free country, there should be a damn good reason for doing that. A better reason than just hoping that a new development will improve the local economy.

Say what you want, but the dissenting justices, the public and the vast majority of us here know how much this stinks.

[Hosnon]

94. I agree with your position. The Courts have redefined the term

"public use" over time and it has turned into something that is quite removed from its original definition. Read the last dissent...the Justice does a good historical analysis of the term.

[onenote]

99. it always stinks when homes are taken through eminent domain

It stinks when private homes are taken to build stadiums, to build railroads, to build stadiums, or to build or widen roads. From the standpoint of the displaced persons, do you think it really matters why? I fully agree that the power of eminent domain should be used sparingly and only as a last resort. But there is a lot of gnashing of teeth here because the property here was taken for economic revitalization. If the government had waited another 10 years until the area was physically falling apart, would it have been any different?

onenote

[smb]

150. Yes.

If the government had waited another 10 years until the area was physically falling apart, would it have been any different?

Yes, because then there would have been a legitimate health-and-safety rationale for condemnation.

I don't see what your point is. Surely you aren't suggesting that the government ought to be able to take away people's property because they might have justification to do so in the future? Under that "logic", the police ought to be able to lock up teenage neer-do-wells who haven't (yet) committed any crime.

[K-W]

100. The fact that it stinks has nothing to do with it's constitutionality.

Nobody is justifying the law, we are just arguing that the people to blame here are the legislators, not the court because the court ruled properly.

Don't characterize those who disagree with you on constitutionality as supporting this law.

[onenote]

107. exactly

You and I are in agreement.

onenote

[Hosnon]

111. I agree that the legislators are at fault for classifying this as a

"public use" - however, that is what the courts are for...to tell the lawmakers that the Constitution does not permit such a classification.

And by not doing so, the Court failed here in my opinion.

[insane_cratic_gal]

114. here is a case in point

Feb 2005 http://tv.ksl.com/index.php?sid=152041&nid=5
(thanks to madhound for the link)


But when the city moved to use eminent domain to acquire the others, that sparked a revolt from the likes of Dorothy Littrell, who bought land in the neighborhood just so she could sue the city on constitutional grounds.

Dorothy Littrell/ Property Owner: "I am not going to sit by and let it happen without screaming all the way down."

Milton Rodriguez/ Property Owner: "We've spoken to them and they don't want to listen to the people around here. It's all about the money."

Cris Rodriguez/ Property Owner: "I think the city leaders are looking down here and they're not seeing people or businesses. They're seeing dollar signs."

But Ogden's mayor, Matthew Godfrey, says eminent domain was used only as a last resort, when a few property owners refused to sell.

He says: "We don't like to do this. We feel bad about the people who don't want to sell, but I think it's in the greater good that we redevelop this area."

The city and some property owners simply can't agree on what's a fair price. Protesters call it a case of Robin Hood in reverse--stealing from the poor and giving it to the rich.

Bill Glasmann/ Wal-Mart Opponent: "We've got a Wal-Mart what, maybe 15 blocks to the north of us, and 30 blocks to the south of us. And now they want to put a big box down here at the expense of these people."

[smb]

148. Either Way, The Logic Is Against "Economic Development" Seizure

They are being forced out of their homes against their will. Some of us still believe that in a free country, there should be a damn good reason for doing that.

Thinking about this a bit more, I realized that the "economically depressed area" rationale just doesn't fly:

Either you accept the idea of forcing people out of their homes for sheer economic benefit, or you do not.

If you don't accept it, then you must reject this use of eminent domain as tyrannical.

If you do accept it, then you must reject this use of eminent domain as unnecessary (if it's OK to force people out of their homes for economic benefit, then it's OK to tell the out-of-work folks to just suck it up and move to where the jobs are).

QED.

[Orsino]

141. Not quite.

The decision makes increased tax revenue in itself a sufficient basis for taking property under eminent domain. It elevates money above the status of private property. This is consistent with the larger neocon agenda, but is not a principle that should be enshrined in law.

All that is required for the "joke" to become terrifyingly real is for the prankster to show a serious will to develop the land, and presumably the necessary capital--then the local government will be "justified" in taking the property, if it likes.

I could actually see this happening, given sufficient public enthusiasm that promises real revenue (or, perhaps, a mischievous sense of humor on the part of the local government). It would be nice to see one of America's wealthy elite become one of the first victims of this horrid decision; perhaps it would even encourage a correction of some sort.

[rinsd]

168. So in other words its okay to evict poor people...

..because do you think those people will be able to afford to live in their improved neighborhood?

No, they'll just move to where they can afford it. If they can afford to move.

And the fact that a specific developer wasn't prearranged doesn't mean anything. Developers have associations and lobbying groups too.

You won't see the rich have their lands divied up. What you will see is that people who are considered expendable will lose their property to those with power.

[rinsd]

171. I guess I shouldn't worry about potential abuses of the Patriot Act either

[bornskeptic]

117. Of course, anyone who actually read the opinion

realizes that Stevens makes it clear that such a use of eminent domain would be illegitimate, since it would involve the taking of the property of one party primarily for the benefit of the other. Both the Connecticut Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court determined that this was not the case in Kelo. The idea that this decision allows a city to take an individual's property and give it to Walmart is nonsense. Such an action, should it ever reach the Supreme Court, would be struck down 9-0.

Two polar propositions are perfectly clear. On the one hand,
it has long been accepted that the sovereign may not take the property of A for the sole purpose of transferring it to another private party B, even though A is paid just compensation. On the other hand, it is equally clear that a State may transfer property from one private party to another if future “use by the public” is the purpose of the taking; the condemnation of land for a railroad with common-carrier duties is a familiar example. Neither of these propositions, however, determines the disposition of this case.
As for the first proposition, the City would no doubt be forbidden from taking petitioners’ land for the purpose of conferring a private benefit on a particular private party. See Midkiff, 467 U. S., at 245 (“A purely private taking could not withstand the scrutiny of the public use requirement;
it would serve no legitimate purpose of government and would thus be void”); Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. Nebraska,
164 U. S. 403 (1896).5 Nor would the City be allowed
to take property under the mere pretext of a public purpose, when its actual purpose was to bestow a private benefit. The takings before us, however, would be executed
pursuant to a “carefully considered” development plan. 268 Conn., at 54, 843 A. 2d, at 536. The trial judge and all the members of the Supreme Court of Connecticut agreed that there was no evidence of an illegitimate purpose
in this case.6 Therefore, as was true of the statute
challenged in Midkiff, 467 U. S., at 245, the City’s development
plan was not adopted “to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals.”


5 See also Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 388 (1798) (“An ACT of the Legislature
(for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative
authority. . . . A few instances will suffice to explain what I mean. . . law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with SUCH powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it. The genius, the nature, and the spirit, of our State Governments, amount to a prohibition of such acts of legislation; and the general principles of law and reason forbid them” (emphasis deleted)).

6 See 268 Conn., at 159, 843 A. 2d, at 595 (Zarella, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“The record clearly demonstrates that the development plan was not intended to serve the interests of Pfizer, Inc., or any other private entity, but rather, to revitalize the local economy by creating temporary and permanent jobs, generating a significant increase in tax revenue, encouraging spin-off economic activities and maximizing public access to the waterfront”). And while the City intends to transfer certain of the parcels to a private developer in a long-term lease—which developer, in turn, is expected to lease the office space and so forth to other private tenants—the identities of those private parties were not known when the plan was adopted. It is, of course, difficult to accuse the government of having taken A’s property
to benefit the private interests of B when the identity of B was unknown.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/23jun20051201/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-108.pdf

[jokerman93]

120. I Don't Believe This

However on a slightly different track, I've been thinking, with the Fundie plan to take over all local governments, it would seem logical to expect that this eminent domain ruling will eventually be used as weapon against political enemies.

[kainah]

121. friend in Weare

A very dear friend of mine in Weare has a wonderful house he built himself on a beautiful piece of property. I hope this isn't a trend in Weare.

If Souter had any sense of this, you have to give him credit for (apparently) voting his conscience. If Souter didn't know anything, you have to agree that Logan Darrow Clements has a steely set of balls.

(Perhaps he gets it from a relative, Clarence Darrow?)

[buddysmellgood]

122. It would have more economic impact as a WALMART

[lildreamer316]

123. I friggin' LOVE this!!n/t

[amagusta]

124. I would donate money to see this come to fruition

I'd rather donate $20 to a project to seize land. . . I mean bring economic development to a small NH town than to give it to move.on or the Sierra Club. I hope this is a story that grows legs.

[amagusta]

125. According to Mussolini "fascism" should be called "corporatism"

"Facism should more properly be called 'corporatism' because it is the merger of state and corporate power"
We already live in a fascist state. Once that becomes generally recognized, perhaps we can do something to change it.

[smb]

126. Karma's A Bitch!

LOL -- it would serve him right.

[DoctorDF]

132. Sophmoric, but

what goes around, comes around.

[LiberallyInclined]

142. what if there are acceptable alternate sites available...?

I honestly haven't read much about the decision- but i would question how the subject of alternate sites was addressed-
in the original case in question- the project being built was site specific- in that it was a gentrification of a 'blighted' area.

in this matter over Souter's property, it would probably be fairly easy to find alternate locations for the project in the same area- and make an eminent domain claim on his property totally without merit.

[insane_cratic_gal]

145. Besides Skeeters and black flies

it's not blighted at all.

My Parent's live in Weare, a new house is 200-300k easy. Two acres of land will run you 80 and up easy.

This is merely someone trying to make a point, I've gotten flamed for saying it, but a good one at that.

And it's totally without merit! Weare doesn't have a pizza hut, a grocery store (small mom & pop store) to justify a hotel. There are few bed and breakfasts.. and 2 campgrounds if you need a place to crash.

But I hear they are getting a Dunkin Donuts, the first corporate thing Weare has seen.

[robcon]

151. Payback's a bitch.

I hope Souter gets what he deserves... homelessness, with a few dollars in his hand, like the people in New London.

[insane_cratic_gal]

154. New London CT?

What's going on in New London?

[LiberallyInclined]

165. when i said blighted, i wasn't referring to souter's home's area-

i was talking about the site in the original case- the one the scotus ruled on.

[smb]

155. He Covered That Base

"in this matter over Souter's property, it would probably be fairly easy to find alternate locations for the project in the same area- and make an eminent domain claim on his property totally without merit"

That's the genius of the "Lost Liberty" theming -- putting it anywhere else would remove the significance of that marketing element and thus reduce the value of the hotel.

[LiberallyInclined]

167. it still won't go anywhere-

individuals can't pursue eminent domain claims- it has to be instigated by the city in question.
wanna bet they don't...?

[brooklynite]

156. In all fairness, no its not starting

Clever as Logan Darrow Clements request is, this does not constitute an "Eminent Domain" process yet. Eminent Domain is must be untaken by the community (potentially, at this point, for the benefit of a single individual or corporate entity). Just a guess, but Weare, NH probably doesn't want the trouble or publicity.

[insane_cratic_gal]

172. I would of agreed with you

but now they want to hear the case. It was reported in AP this morning. Chip (apparently the new guy on the board as agreed to hear Clements. He said I'm taking it seriously."

[Ilsa]

157. My favorite flag:

From Gonzales, Texas

I hope Souter gets a taste of his own medicine.

[alfredo]

163. I am putting up this poster around wealthy neighborhoods

I am also going to make on saying "Wal Mart wants your home."

[Ilsa]

170. My favorite flag now:

From Gonzales Texas.

[Maine-ah]

174. it's true

WEARE, New Hampshire (AP) -- A critic of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that governments may seize private property for economic development is suggesting the process be used to replace Justice David Souter's New Hampshire home with a hotel.

"The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare," Logan Darrow Clements wrote in a fax to town officials in Weare Tuesday.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/29/souter.property.ap/index.html