I thought this was entertaining. Via Rantburg, thanks to a tip from reader Tom Pechinski:
"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."
Wait, it gets better...
"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 Cafe" 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."
Great joke, right? Uh...
"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."
Ongoing updates can be found at the FreeStar Media web site.
I'm an original intent kind of guy, and I'm not conversant with the legal arguments. It's possible that the decision in Kelo was unfortunate but the only one that could be supported based on what the state of the law is (though Justice Thomas' well-written dissent suggests probably not).
All I know is, expropriating someone's home to give to a commercial developer is wrong, wrong, wrong - an abuse of a sovereign people, and one of the biggest invitations to corruption I have ever seen. So it will be a ton of fun to follow this one. Normally I'm pretty sympathetic to the idea that public officials must not be harassed in the performance of their duties - but in this case, the punishment definitely fits the crime.
At the very least, it should get some great and thought-provoking publicity if they muster the Board of Selectmen votes. Maybe it will even a few people to consider the merits of studying libertarian legal theory in law schools, as a much-needed counterbalance and perspective.
I should add that there is no such thing as property rights in Canada. Mind you, there are an awful lot of rights and safeguards that don't exist in Canada (Hat Tip: Jack "Zed" Zidaric).
UPDATE: Democratic House Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) doesn't seem to get.... well, a lot of things.
LOL Who does not believe in kharma now?
Joe
You might like this story though
http://reformjudaismmag.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=1012
The tyranny of the majority indeed.
James Madison
On the Texas-Oklahoma border Lake Texoma covers the former sites of three small towns, an Indian village and much rich farmland that the owners did not part with willingly. As a matter of fact, my father was run off with guns more than once while appraising the lands to estimate their monetary value in order to make those purchases.
Truthfully, I've always hated the thought that those honest people were pushed off their land, although I do understand the need for the water. Lake Texoma provides water to a lot of relatively parched towns in that area.
Eminent domain needs to be exercised with very great discretion.
Hey, does anyone have a copy of the prospectus? Maybe we could send courtesy copies to the 4 who voted against Kelo.
With such rulings, who needs a Socialist party?
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Tax Revenue
How many million deaths have caused the good of the community?
The difference with Lake Texoma is that it truly serves a public function.
Our president could tell us the difference between that and the deal that the Texas Rangers got when folks were forced to sell their property for a ballpark that was turned over to the privately owned ballclub. Whatever Bush is, his libertarian streak is quite small.
True, lurker, good point - but the effect on the homeowner who sought out his/her place and put up a home on it, is the same.
And in suburban Dallas, the Cowboys are taking by eminent domain some little shops and homes to build a new stadium - leaving a facility that they won't negotiate with their former home in Irving, TX, to improve, thereby also depriving people who established businesses that counted on their presence there.
It would seem that giving dominant powers to corporate entities is not the best choice of means of protecting public interests.
Rep. Ted Poe of TX stood up in Congress today and noted that Justice Souter's home is the object of a newly instituted eminent domain effort in NH. He didn't smirk when he said it, though.
Ruth,
I agree with you. Forceably taking property from private citizens is NEVER a good thing to the victims. Eminent domain has always been the law of the land. The state shold exercise this power with care and only rarely, and NEVER for the benefit of any other private party. If the state takes property, it should be for state uses and not private ones.
I lived in Dallas for 14 years and the deal with the Rangers still rankles. It was how George W. Bush, as minority owner and supposedly a conservative, made most of his money. A gifted stadium is a sweet deal alright. Compared to this, Hillary's profit on beef futures doesn't even rate a blip. I'm not in the least surprised that the Cowboys are now feeding at the same trough.
The Dallas Cowboys too, huh... doesn't that violate the laws against separation of Church and State?
Smile when you say that. (as we say around the ol' corral).
lurker, remember they've been having losing seasons lately. Some of the excess may be going off shore ... oops, heresy.
If Clements did an IPO for a business around this (say, targeting the homes and other real-estate owned by our hundred Senators), I'd happily make a sizable investment (as large or larger than what I give to the IJ who are fighting the good fight).
(Added here because we're having technical problems with some posts):
Democratic House Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) doesn't seem to get.... well, a lot of things.