PDA

View Full Version : Surprising SCOUS ruling


Mavdog
06-23-2005, 11:03 AM
The ruling is very troubling in regard to an individual's property rights. "Fair compensation" is not entirely adequate when condemnation is used to deliver profit to a private enterprise IMO (clearly not representing true "market value"), and there is a critical question of if the government should be assisting private investors reap profits at the detriment of its less wealthy citizens.

damn, I'm actually agreeing with Clarence Thomas. i/expressions/face-icon-small-smile.gif
----------------------------------------------
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer

A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights.

The 5-4 ruling — assailed by dissenting Justice Sanday Day O'Connor as handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled in America — was a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They had argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he said.

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including — but by no means limited to — new jobs and increased tax revenue," Stevens wrote in an opinion joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

"It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area," he said.

O'Connor, who has often been a key swing vote at the court, issued a stinging dissent, arguing that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

Connecticut residents involved in the lawsuit expressed dismay and pledged to keep fighting.

"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."

Scott Bullock, an attorney for the Institute for Justice representing the families, added: "A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong today and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result."

At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.

"We're pleased," attorney Edward O'Connell, who represents New London Development Corporation, said in response to the ruling.

The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.

O'Connor was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in recent years, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.

New London, a town of less than 26,000, once was a center of the whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub. More recently the city has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the country, with losses of residents and jobs.

The New London neighborhood that will be swept away includes Victorian-era houses and small businesses that in some instances have been owned by several generations of families. Among the New London residents in the case is a couple in their 80s who have lived in the same home for more than 50 years.

City officials envision a commercial development that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.

New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, which argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects such Baltimore's Inner Harbor and Kansas City's Kansas Speedway.

Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, Kelo and the other homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property.

The case was one of six resolved by justices on Thursday. Still pending at the high court are cases dealing with the constitutionality of government Ten Commandments displays and the liability of Internet file-sharing services for clients' illegal swapping of copyrighted songs and movies. The Supreme Court next meets on Monday.

dude1394
06-23-2005, 01:30 PM
Agreeing with clarence thomas is very habit forming. Be careful..

GermanBlitzkrieg
06-23-2005, 02:19 PM
Truthfully, this makes us the Socialist United States of America, because the key to Socialism is the loss of property rights. One lousey stickin' reply about the biggest sea shift to America perhaps EVER. Damn, people are so freakin' lazy and stupid. Or, should I say brainwashed, as Bradley's retirement gets tons of postings. What a screwed up world...

Jbrjo
06-23-2005, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by: GermanBlitzkrieg
Damn, people are so freakin' lazy and stupid. Or, should I say brainwashed, as Bradley's retirement gets tons of postings. What a screwed up world...

Give it up it's a Mavs message board

But it's really a rather scary ruling BTW

Rhylan
06-23-2005, 05:31 PM
Totally agree w/ everyone's comments, and I'm extremely surprised at the ruling. Very strange indeed.

dude1394
06-23-2005, 06:43 PM
I'm out there trying day after day after day after day trying to get these nutty liberals to get more conservative judges on the court, giving money to republicans, thwarting mavdog. What else do you want?

dude1394
06-23-2005, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by: Rhylan
Totally agree w/ everyone's comments, and I'm extremely surprised at the ruling. Very strange indeed.


Not really strange when you come at it from a leftists viewpoint. The state is supposed to know better than we do how to spend our money and we are all too stupid to manager our social security, pick our schools. It's a pretty natural extension of the nanny-state, since the state knows what's good for us.

Rhylan
06-23-2005, 10:06 PM
You're right on point dude.. I just hope that people start to pick up on the hypocrisy here. The left is supposed to be all about the little man. Well, let's bulldoze the little man's house and put in a shopping center. The majority opinion are all judges nominated by Democratic presidents, right, except Souter?

Where's the ACLU when you need 'em? i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif

dude1394
06-23-2005, 10:36 PM
The aclu thinks it's more important to shut down the boy scouts everywhere they can.

Drbio
06-23-2005, 11:02 PM
Great posts dude.....seriously.

Usually Lurkin
06-24-2005, 07:01 AM
Down with the poor people! Those who cannot defend themselves politically and economically against a land grab will be more likely to lose their land than those who can.

"fair value" is a crock. A developer will move into an area when the market is down, regardless of whether individual land owners signed their morgages when the market was up. "Fair" will be what's fair for the friends and cronies of those on the councils of the local governments.

How long until my car, my books, my computer, or the rest of my bank account can be given over to anyone who says they can provide more public dollars with it's use?

Mavdog
06-24-2005, 08:58 AM
Actually the ACLU was siding with the homeowners. So was the NAACP and others.

This actually falls into the gray area of neither a "liberal" nr a "conservative" issue. What is easy to see is that it benefits business interests over the interests of the individual.

The property owner still receives just compensation for their property. Of course, the value of a property is difficult to ascertain when the ultimate use is not factored into the appraisal. What of a housing tract that is granted new entitlements, those entitlements not benefiting the original owner but the subsequent owner who was provided the property (with more generous development opportunities) by the State? Basically the original property owner is screwed. The developer is given land at a relatively low cost basis for what their new project encompasses.

This is a big win for those cities that are aggressive in expanding their tax base and want to rid themselves of what they see as unsightly uses that exist. The market should not be manipulated by the use of eminent domain for the benefit of private interests.

Usually Lurkin
06-24-2005, 09:11 AM
I wonder what'll be harder for a local government to do in the next few years: to obtain and defend a search warrant, or to take your home by eminent domain?

dude1394
06-24-2005, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by: Mavdog
Actually the ACLU was siding with the homeowners. So was the NAACP and others.

This actually falls into the gray area of neither a "liberal" nr a "conservative" issue. What is easy to see is that it benefits business interests over the interests of the individual.

The property owner still receives just compensation for their property. Of course, the value of a property is difficult to ascertain when the ultimate use is not factored into the appraisal. What of a housing tract that is granted new entitlements, those entitlements not benefiting the original owner but the subsequent owner who was provided the property (with more generous development opportunities) by the State? Basically the original property owner is screwed. The developer is given land at a relatively low cost basis for what their new project encompasses.

This is a big win for those cities that are aggressive in expanding their tax base and want to rid themselves of what they see as unsightly uses that exist. The market should not be manipulated by the use of eminent domain for the benefit of private interests.


I don't agree that it falls into any gray area of "liberal" or "conservative". It's a pretty conservative issue I would think. A strict interpreataion of the constitution (which conservatives would normally do) would have this being thrown out. However the liberal objective for the last 30 years or so has been to legislate from the bench what could not be done legislatively. Just because the ACLU and the NAACP are against this ruling, only shows that they have reaped what they have sown for so many years. Legislating from the bench is all well and good when it is going for you, however when it is not, it leaves no recourse to the people. I think you are somehow projecting that conservatives are necessarily going to side with the governement in this case but that is a ad-hominem position that isn't relevant nor stands up. Possibly conservatives might stand with a business over some silly snail darter, but rarely when it comes to the rights of citizens as enumerated in the constitution.

The property owner as Justice Thomas and O'Conner put it now will not have anywhere near the leverage they have had before to actuallly RECEIVE just compensation. Now the government with their much larger amount of legal resources can threaten the poor homeowner with legal hell unless they sell at the price that the government decides is "fair". It's a horrible decision and only a socialist would like it. Hmmmmm...

dude1394
06-24-2005, 09:15 PM
Seems that the justice that the left villified is one of the strongest advocates of property rights in the country, of course the leftists in congress filibustered her nomination because of it. Make sure that when the government comes for your property you have supported conservative judges and representatives for conservative judges that are against it.

------------
powerline (http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010831.php)
You Want Property Rights Defended?

Yesterday's outpouring of concern in the conservative half of the blogosphere over the Supreme Court's decision in the Kelo case was striking, and, to those who recognize the importance of property rights, heartening. If you are concerned about the steady erosion of property rights, you should be very glad that the Senate has confirmed Judge Janice Rogers Brown to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Because Judge Brown is one of the most eloquent and vigorous defenders of property rights on the contemporary scene. One of Brown's decisions that the Left tried to characterize as "out of the mainstream" was her dissent, while on the California Supreme Court, in a case called San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco. The case involved a restriction that the City of San Francisco placed on the owners of residence hotels that sought to convert to tourist hotels. The right to convert the use of the property was conditioned on the owner's creation of an equal number of low-income residence units, or payment of a special tax to underwrite the City's creation of low-income housing. Thus, the cost of supplying low-income housing within the City was shifted away from the taxpayers generally to a few hundred hotel owners, and the special levy was enforced by otherwise barring the hotel owners from putting their property to its most economic use. Justice Brown found the City's scheme to be both an uncontitutional taking and a violation of a California statute guaranteeing the right to convert such hotels.

Here is how Justice Brown began her dissent:


Americans are a diverse group of hard-working, confident, and creative people molded into a nation not by common ethnic identity, cultural legacy, or history; rather, Americans have been united by a dream—a dream of freedom, a vision of how free people might live. The dream has a history. The idea that property ownership is the essential prerequisite of liberty has long been “a fundamental tenet of Anglo-American constitutional thought.” (Ely, The Guardian of Every Other Right (1998) p. 43.) “Indeed, the framers saw property ownership as a buffer protecting individuals from government coercion. Arbitrary redistribution of property destroyed liberty, and thus the framers hoped to restrain attacks on property rights.” (Ibid.) “Property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist” (6 The Works of John Adams, Discourses on Davila (1851 ed.) p. 280), because property and liberty are, upon examination, one and the same thing.

Private property is in essence a cluster of rights inuring to the benefit of the owner, freely exchangeable in accordance with the terms of private agreements, and recognized and protected by common consent. In the case of real property, this cluster of rights includes the right to exclude persons from certain physical space. In the case of intellectual property, it may include the right to employ a valuable method or process to the exclusion of others. In other words, private property represents zones of individual sovereignty—regions of autonomy within which we make our own choices.

But private property, already an endangered species in California, is now entirely extinct in San Francisco. The City and County of San Francisco has implemented a neo-feudal regime where the nominal owner of property must use that property according to the preferences of the majorities that prevail in the political process—or, worse, the political powerbrokers who often control the government independently of majoritarian preferences. Thus, “the lamb [has been] committed to the custody of the wolf.” (6 The Works of John Adams, supra, at p. 280.) San Francisco has redefined the American dream. Where once government was closely constrained to increase the freedom of individuals, now property ownership is closely constrained to increase the power of government. Where once government was a necessary evil because it protected private property, now private property is a necessary evil because it funds government programs.

The Kelo decision seems to have struck a nerve. Driving home from the airport this afternoon, I listened to Joe Soucheray, one of the most popular local talk show hosts in America, talking about the decision, which he views as more important than any other recent controversy. He expressed the view that we all woke up this morning in a different country as a result of a decision which holds, in essence, that the government's right to higher tax revenues is paramount over the citizens' rights as property owners. If there is a popular resurgence in understanding of, and support for, property rights, the Democrats may regret the day when they abandoned their filibuster of Judge Brown.

dude1394
06-24-2005, 09:32 PM
Heh...pretty funny...from the corner.


REVERSING KELO: HMMMM [Jonah Goldberg]

From a reader:

Jonah,

The quickest way to reverse Kelo is to find some conservative town in Utah somewhere to shut down an abortion clinic in order to make room for a Wal-Mart. Also, that would be the most fun way to get Kelo reversed.

Mavdog
06-25-2005, 08:40 AM
Originally posted by: dude1394

Originally posted by: Mavdog
Actually the ACLU was siding with the homeowners. So was the NAACP and others.

This actually falls into the gray area of neither a "liberal" nr a "conservative" issue. What is easy to see is that it benefits business interests over the interests of the individual.

The property owner still receives just compensation for their property. Of course, the value of a property is difficult to ascertain when the ultimate use is not factored into the appraisal. What of a housing tract that is granted new entitlements, those entitlements not benefiting the original owner but the subsequent owner who was provided the property (with more generous development opportunities) by the State? Basically the original property owner is screwed. The developer is given land at a relatively low cost basis for what their new project encompasses.

This is a big win for those cities that are aggressive in expanding their tax base and want to rid themselves of what they see as unsightly uses that exist. The market should not be manipulated by the use of eminent domain for the benefit of private interests.


I don't agree that it falls into any gray area of "liberal" or "conservative". It's a pretty conservative issue I would think. A strict interpreataion of the constitution (which conservatives would normally do) would have this being thrown out. However the liberal objective for the last 30 years or so has been to legislate from the bench what could not be done legislatively. Just because the ACLU and the NAACP are against this ruling, only shows that they have reaped what they have sown for so many years. Legislating from the bench is all well and good when it is going for you, however when it is not, it leaves no recourse to the people. I think you are somehow projecting that conservatives are necessarily going to side with the governement in this case but that is a ad-hominem position that isn't relevant nor stands up. Possibly conservatives might stand with a business over some silly snail darter, but rarely when it comes to the rights of citizens as enumerated in the constitution.

The property owner as Justice Thomas and O'Conner put it now will not have anywhere near the leverage they have had before to actuallly RECEIVE just compensation. Now the government with their much larger amount of legal resources can threaten the poor homeowner with legal hell unless they sell at the price that the government decides is "fair". It's a horrible decision and only a socialist would like it. Hmmmmm...

You fail to follow the ruling. It was an opinion that the court is not to decide where the right of ends, as the ruling affirms what the city did as legal and that their use of eminent domain was within their rights. Absolutely 180 degrees from any "judicial activism" or "legislating from the bench"

The government doesn't decide what is "fair" in eminent domain, it is done by was of a standard manner of appraised fair value done by independent accredited professionals.

The use of the word "socialist" is a misnomer, no property is being seized withour compensation. The question is if the city has the right to use this Constitutionally granted right in the manner it was granted to them. The city would be held to account if it did not compenste the landlowner as that is clearly a taking. If you feel that eminent domain is a "socialist" tool, then you must believe that the US Constitution is a "socialist" document.

The leaders of several of these cities who are front and center of the debate are indeed conservatives. I don't believe you will find that this issue falls clearly on either side of the political divide, and it's incorrect to attempt to lay it there.

Mavdog
06-25-2005, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by: dude1394
Seems that the justice that the left villified is one of the strongest advocates of property rights in the country, of course the leftists in congress filibustered her nomination because of it. Make sure that when the government comes for your property you have supported conservative judges and representatives for conservative judges that are against it.

------------
powerline (http://powerlineblog.com/archives/010831.php)
You Want Property Rights Defended?

Yesterday's outpouring of concern in the conservative half of the blogosphere over the Supreme Court's decision in the Kelo case was striking, and, to those who recognize the importance of property rights, heartening. If you are concerned about the steady erosion of property rights, you should be very glad that the Senate has confirmed Judge Janice Rogers Brown to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Because Judge Brown is one of the most eloquent and vigorous defenders of property rights on the contemporary scene. One of Brown's decisions that the Left tried to characterize as "out of the mainstream" was her dissent, while on the California Supreme Court, in a case called San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco. The case involved a restriction that the City of San Francisco placed on the owners of residence hotels that sought to convert to tourist hotels. The right to convert the use of the property was conditioned on the owner's creation of an equal number of low-income residence units, or payment of a special tax to underwrite the City's creation of low-income housing. Thus, the cost of supplying low-income housing within the City was shifted away from the taxpayers generally to a few hundred hotel owners, and the special levy was enforced by otherwise barring the hotel owners from putting their property to its most economic use. Justice Brown found the City's scheme to be both an uncontitutional taking and a violation of a California statute guaranteeing the right to convert such hotels.

Here is how Justice Brown began her dissent:


Americans are a diverse group of hard-working, confident, and creative people molded into a nation not by common ethnic identity, cultural legacy, or history; rather, Americans have been united by a dream—a dream of freedom, a vision of how free people might live. The dream has a history. The idea that property ownership is the essential prerequisite of liberty has long been “a fundamental tenet of Anglo-American constitutional thought.” (Ely, The Guardian of Every Other Right (1998) p. 43.) “Indeed, the framers saw property ownership as a buffer protecting individuals from government coercion. Arbitrary redistribution of property destroyed liberty, and thus the framers hoped to restrain attacks on property rights.” (Ibid.) “Property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist” (6 The Works of John Adams, Discourses on Davila (1851 ed.) p. 280), because property and liberty are, upon examination, one and the same thing.

Private property is in essence a cluster of rights inuring to the benefit of the owner, freely exchangeable in accordance with the terms of private agreements, and recognized and protected by common consent. In the case of real property, this cluster of rights includes the right to exclude persons from certain physical space. In the case of intellectual property, it may include the right to employ a valuable method or process to the exclusion of others. In other words, private property represents zones of individual sovereignty—regions of autonomy within which we make our own choices.

But private property, already an endangered species in California, is now entirely extinct in San Francisco. The City and County of San Francisco has implemented a neo-feudal regime where the nominal owner of property must use that property according to the preferences of the majorities that prevail in the political process—or, worse, the political powerbrokers who often control the government independently of majoritarian preferences. Thus, “the lamb [has been] committed to the custody of the wolf.” (6 The Works of John Adams, supra, at p. 280.) San Francisco has redefined the American dream. Where once government was closely constrained to increase the freedom of individuals, now property ownership is closely constrained to increase the power of government. Where once government was a necessary evil because it protected private property, now private property is a necessary evil because it funds government programs.

The Kelo decision seems to have struck a nerve. Driving home from the airport this afternoon, I listened to Joe Soucheray, one of the most popular local talk show hosts in America, talking about the decision, which he views as more important than any other recent controversy. He expressed the view that we all woke up this morning in a different country as a result of a decision which holds, in essence, that the government's right to higher tax revenues is paramount over the citizens' rights as property owners. If there is a popular resurgence in understanding of, and support for, property rights, the Democrats may regret the day when they abandoned their filibuster of Judge Brown.

LMAO! Judge Brown is railing against use restrictions (zoning) which is applied equally to all property according to type and use (save for the "special use" procedures which an indivual can seek). This has nothing to do with the issue of eminent domain decided by the court. Land use restrictions are present in every municipality around us (save and except for that anarchy of planning, the mistake that is down I-45, Houston) and is a fundamental right/duty of government. It protects everyone of us property owners and to take a position these restrictions are a "taking" is not well thought out.

As far as the tax put on these properties in San Francisco, that is nothing new or extreme. Street Assessments, utility tap charges, even homeowner association dues are found in every area of the country and are nothing new or special.

The above merely shows just how much an extremist Brown truly is.

dude1394
06-25-2005, 08:55 AM
You pick at nits mon frere. Is it not true that the conservative side of scotus came down against this? No doubt that conservatives in business/governement are going to use this and promote it, it's in their best personal financial interests, when it comes to money, individuals will put aside a lot of their philosophy. They also believe they are correct, that they are doing the society "good" by taking another person's private land.

It is a "socialist" opinion in that the good of the many outweighs the rights of the one in these cases and the government is deciding what is the good, not the individuals. It is already having quite an effect, the new dallas cowboys stadium will now not cost the city as much to build because they will threaten the landowners with suits if they do not settle. They people owning that land are already being characterized as wanting outrageous amounts for their land, it will continue. Legal extortion.

Of course the government must be able to force transfers of land when public good is required for roads, sewers, etc. You could not allow an individual to have that much power, but equating a government public need to a private developers need is the problem isn't it?

Unfortunately when you let the government decide what is best for you, you get tyranny eventually.

Mavdog
06-27-2005, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by: dude1394
You pick at nits mon frere. Is it not true that the conservative side of scotus came down against this? No doubt that conservatives in business/governement are going to use this and promote it, it's in their best personal financial interests, when it comes to money, individuals will put aside a lot of their philosophy. They also believe they are correct, that they are doing the society "good" by taking another person's private land.

It is a "socialist" opinion in that the good of the many outweighs the rights of the one in these cases and the government is deciding what is the good, not the individuals. It is already having quite an effect, the new dallas cowboys stadium will now not cost the city as much to build because they will threaten the landowners with suits if they do not settle. They people owning that land are already being characterized as wanting outrageous amounts for their land, it will continue. Legal extortion.

The price of the Arlington stadium is not affected on e dollar by this ruling. The ability of cities to use eminent domain for facilities such as stadiums has been decided many years ago, this ruling has to do with the use by a private development entity that is for profit. These owners in Arlington will receive a fair market value for their property and that has not changed.


Of course the government must be able to force transfers of land when public good is required for roads, sewers, etc. You could not allow an individual to have that much power, but equating a government public need to a private developers need is the problem isn't it?

Unfortunately when you let the government decide what is best for you, you get tyranny eventually.

IMO the problem isn't that the city is working in conjunction with a private interests, that's been done for decades, it is that the owners will not recieve fair market value for their property. I find it strange that this was not in any of the arguments as only the challenge to the city's right to use ED was argued.

FishForLunch
06-28-2005, 02:01 PM
Press Release

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

Drbio
06-28-2005, 10:49 PM
That's perfect delicious irony.