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.