Souters house to be torn down? LOL

[Wildcard Ky]

I find this to be poetice justice after the ruling last week. It'll never happen, but at least it will raise some eyebrows.

Souter and eminent domain

 

[cloudy]

More power to 'em, I say. It won't work, but it'd be a hoot if it did. Like I've said before, what goes around comes around.

 

[OhMissScarlett]

"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."

That's priceless. I want to buy that guy a beer.

 

[SeaCat]

Wouldn't it be funny to see? I wonder what legal game they will play to stop the taking of the land.

Cat

 

[R. Richard]

At the very least the maneuvering will be amusing!

 

[amicus]

I will gladly donate my well thumbed copy of Atlas Shrugged.

A great post and link! Thank you!

amicus

ps Elizabeth Ayn
Johnathan Rand

two of my children....

 

[LadyJeanne]

Wouldn't it be funny to see? I wonder what legal game they will play to stop the taking of the land.

Cat

Weeeellll, it was just a request from the Freestar Media CEO in California to New Hampshire town officials saying he wants to build a hotel on his property. His primary reason for selecting that particular property is that Souter owns it.

"He [Clements] said he did not even come up with the plan until Monday afternoon.

"Souter was appointed by a Republican and should have known better," Clements said, "although Republicans are really good at disappointing us."

He hopes his efforts get the attention of President Bush.

"It looks like there is going to be another vacancy (on the court) and I hope George Bush the Second chooses his nominees a little more carefully than his father did," Clements said.

"We want to send that signal."

Decatur Daily

The town officials haven't actually agreed to pursue this. My guess is they won't.

But if they did, I'll hazard another guess and say Souter would try something like applying for State or National Landmark status for his farmhouse.

 

[amicus]

Wildcard....your link source was just interviewed on Fox News, Hannity and Colmes and the guy has tons of people willing to invest and is turning the project over to a company that builds and manages hotels.

He says it is not a stunt, actually quoted from Ayn Rand.

This story has legs!

thanks again...

amicus....

 

[SeaCat]

Wildcard....your link source was just interviewed on Fox News, Hannity and Colmes and the guy has tons of people willing to invest and is turning the project over to a company that builds and manages hotels.

He says it is not a stunt, actually quoted from Ayn Rand.

This story has legs!

thanks again...

amicus....

Amicus,

You seem almost to be enjoying this. (I know I am enjoying the irony of it and can't wait to see the legal wrangling this causes.)

Cat

 

[amicus]

Yes, Seacat...it should be interesting. During the interview it was said that people are coming out of the woodwork on this issue. Property rights touches a raw nerve, it seems and this could be an ongoing issue.

We shall see...


amicus...

 

[LadyJeanne]

Yes, Seacat...it should be interesting. During the interview it was said that people are coming out of the woodwork on this issue. Property rights touches a raw nerve, it seems and this could be an ongoing issue.

We shall see...


amicus...

Why so gleeful, amicus? The Supreme Court essentially threw this issue down to the state and local governments - something you would normally applaud.

If the states didn't have such fucked up laws on the books, your property wouldn't be in danger of seizure through eminent domain, now would it? The free market's not working for ya now?

 

[mack_the_knife]

Somehow I imagine there are some really thick industrial-strength steel-cables that can be pulled to prevent that.

However, just watching them try to say it's not a good idea should be fun.

 

[cheerful_deviant]

I just saw an internet poll on one of the news sites a while ago. While I don't place much faith in polls, they give you a pretty good idea of public sentiment.

Results: about 31000 against private land seizures vs. 700 for. The people have spoken.

 

[Wildcard Ky]

Why so gleeful, amicus? The Supreme Court essentially threw this issue down to the state and local governments - something you would normally applaud.

If the states didn't have such fucked up laws on the books, your property wouldn't be in danger of seizure through eminent domain, now would it? The free market's not working for ya now?

That's not true. The power has always been with the states to seize land for THE BETTERMENT OF THE COMMUNITY. They've always been able to seize land for things like roads, schools, airports, etc. Basically things that will be community owned, and for the betterment of the community.

What this ruling has done is given the way for land to be seized for PRIVATE interests. Land can now be seized so someone can put in a strip mall, an office building, a warehouse, or whatever one private owner wants to do with it.

The only betterment the community will get out of it is increased tax revenue. That's basically what this ruling has done. Any land can be seized and turned over to a private owner if there will be increased tax revenues for the community from the land.

 

[amicus]

I heard on CNN today that somewhere in Congress an amendment was passed that would forbid Federal monies from going into any project that involved the new SCOTUS ruling on eminent domain.

But my search turned up nothing at this point.

http://techcentralstation.com/062305C.html

However, I have heard snippets all over the place that this ruling has created a nationwide firestorm of criticism of the SCOTUS ruling.

amicus...