Posted on 06/28/2005 4:05:47 PM PDT by Nachum
Developer wants 'Lost Liberty Hotel' built upon property of David Souter
A private developer contacted the local government in Supreme Court Justice David Souter's hometown in New Hampshire yesterday asking that the property of the judge who voted in favor of a controversial decision allowing a city to take residents' homes for private development be seized to make room for a new hotel.
Logan Darrow Clements faxed a request to Chip Meany, the code enforcement officer of the town of Weare, N.H., seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road, the present location of Souter's home.
Wrote Clements: "Although this property is owned by an individual, David H. Souter, a recent Supreme Court decision, Kelo v. City of New London, clears the way for this land to be taken by the government of Weare through eminent domain and given to my LLC for the purposes of building 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."
The Kelo v. City of New London decision, handed down Thursday, allows the New London, Conn., government to seize the homes and businesses of residents to facilitate the building of an office complex that would provide economic benefits to the area and more tax revenue to the city. Though the practice of eminent domain is provided for in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, this case is significant because the seizure is for private development and not for "public use," such as a highway or bridge. The decision has been roundly criticized by property-rights activists and limited-government commentators.
According to a statement from Clements, 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 in each room, guests will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged," the statement said.
Clements says 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."
Souter has claimed Weare as his home since he moved there as an 11-year-old boy with his family.
"This is not a prank" said Clements. "The town 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 says his plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise additional capital for the project.
While Clements currently makes a living in marketing and video production, he tells WND he has had involvement in real estate development and is fully committed to the project.
"We will build a hotel there if investors come forward, definitely," he said.
Clements is the CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, which is dedicated to fighting "the most deadly and destructive force on the planet: abusive governments," the website states.
The activist says he is aware of the apparent conflict of someone who is strongly opposed to the Kelo decision using it to purposely oust an American from his property.
"I realize there is a contradiction, but we're only going to use it against people who advocated" the Kelo decision, Clements told WND. "Therefore, it's a case of retaliation, not initiation."
Clements says some people have already offered to put money into the project
We can only hope ...
GOOD, I PREFER A SECOND FLOOR ROOM.
Bader and Souter make a lovely couple.
They could live together in Celibacy City.
To be fair, he should THEN go after any selectmen who DO vote for this use of eminent domain ... one at a time, to see what excuses the others come up with to disallow it ... and then, in an expert move, go after his own house.
Then, sell the hotel, and go after that land again to build an EVEN bugger hotel ... you know, big enough to provide $5 more a year in tax revenue.
(For bonus points, erect a giant 10-commandments monument on the property, then grant the hotel to the town as town office space with the caveat that the monument can never be covered or removed.)
I'm all for this!
I believe he then LOSES his house, as the current opinion of the Supreme Court is that this is allowed, and they'd need a 5-4 (or other majority) to overturn.
it'll serve that f---er right
How do we go about investing in this development?
Perhaps we should know the info on the 5 person Board of Selectmen. They are the ones who'd have to approve the eviction.
Imagine the tourism in that town if they could pull this off - or even if they got a giant amount of press by just voting to condem.
See post #69 for more info...
Oh that would be funny!! LOL!! I think this is great! LOL!!
Click here for his post on the other thread.
Count me in.
Oh! And you have to have a clown room! For clowns Palosi with her runaway bride look and Kennedy with his drunken red nose look LOL!!!
Hopefully there are some Souter family graves on the site so they may be appropriately desecrated.
Still, she has friends. We might target one of them for this sort of thing.
I bet he could find a shole lot of investors on this forum. Heck, I'd do it just for a little revenge,uh, that is to say, to help the public interests of his old hometown.
and other libs who advocate this - and also start with some of the town councilmen - and liberal senators and congressmen and see how long it takes before they squeal for repeal - while waving the Constitution
I understand there a properties in Georgetown and Chappaqua that might also be appropriate.
Boston, perhaps???
Got That....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.