Posted on 08/27/2005 10:49:28 AM PDT by JesseP
Land Grab or 'Just Desserts?'
A California man angry about a recent Supreme Court decision that allowed a Connecticut city to seize private property for commercial use is trying to turn the ruling against one high court justice.
Logan Darrow Clements wants to build a hotel on an eight-acre property owned by Supreme Court Justice David Souter in the small New England town of Weare, N.H., as a way to protest the eminent domain ruling.
Clements says that putting a hotel on Souter’s property would make a lot more money for the town, and would also make a point about private property rights.
"We're trying to educate five special people about the importance of the Fifth Amendment by using their own flawed logic and applying it to their own situations,” said Clements. "It is a PR effort to call attention to eminent domain abuse and it's a creative way to do it."
Souter was one of five Supreme Court justices who sided with the city of New London, Conn., in its fight to seize private landowners' property in order to build a hotel and convention center. Eminent domain allows municipalities to take private land for its own use -- despite the owners' objections -- if the proposed project for that land, such as a road, benefits the community.
Clements says he wants to build the "Lost Liberty Hotel," complete with a dining room called the "Just Desserts Cafe," where Souter's 200-year old farmhouse sits today. Souter isn't commenting on the attempted land grab; and while some locals support the idea, others call it "ludicrous.”
A Weare official says the plan may not meet the court's burden of proof.
"I just question what kind of economic development will the town of Weare benefit from this?” said Weare Selectwoman Heleen Kurk. “I don't think the homework has been done."
Clements’ supporters need just 25 signatures to get the proposed hotel on the ballot next March, where a simple majority vote would force the town to take a serious look at claiming and rezoning Souter's property.
More power to him.
Where's the source for this article? And why is this in Breaking News?
Last I heard, this proposal was dead for the time being, 3 to 5 against.
says it's gonna be voted on because he was collecting signatures
Massive inflow of tourists who will spend their extra money in local eating establishments, stores, gas stations, entertainment. It's the next best thing to the fictional "heartbreak hotel".
They ought to go after the property of all of the justices who voted for this abomination and get the thing overturned if at all possible.
Ordinarily I'd be against such a thing, even against a liberal, and don't believe in revenge, but doggone it, they should have thought of the consequences before they put on their high court hats and voted, presumably thinking they were untouchable.
Maybe conservatives ought to buy up the whole town of Weare, property by friggin property. We could form a corporation and do it.
It was a good ploy , it got some press, but no one with half a brain would ever believe a Judge would rule against a Supreme Court Judge.
Seems more people are feeling suicidal these days...
There suppose to rule on the law. Not judges.
Is this part of the welcome organization? I think that is his name. I heard part of an interview with him on doing this project. He sounds like a reasonable man and now has the law on his side.
Well, if developer Clements can show the Selectmen/wimmins a couple of years worth of solid 100% bookings (which I'm sure he could obtain with minimal publicity), that would negate her argument.
I'd vote for it if I lived there, AND if it passes I'd go stay in the hotel when it's built
Hey he wouldn't be ruling against the Supreme, he'd be upholding the Supreme's ruling :)
Did you ever see a cop give another cop a ticket?, Yes this is America and we are all equal Bwahahaha, If you believe that I have a bridge for sale.
The issues are argued before the meeting and then it is a straight up or down vote by the members of the meeting, in this case all voters who show up, there is a quorum requirement.
In my experience it can get nasty and you have to get your people out, but after that it is an up or down vote, Selectmen be damned.
Good luck booking a room during the tourist season :-). I think it will have to be expanded if it comes to pass. They could probably build some guest cottages, too.
It would be quaint compared to what passes for hotels today. Too much sameness for me, but they are convenient.
Like the good conservatives we are, we wouldn't steal the towels, ashtrays (oops maybe those aren't allowed any more), and anything that isn't nailed down either, would we?
The souvenir shop attached to the main hotel should have lots of neat stuff in it to satisfy our cravings for memorabilia, and just think, 50 years now (if we have it), they will go for big bucks on ebay. It's a win/win proposition any way you look at it except for the judge.
He can recoup his losses by building a real "Heartbreak Hotel" to compete and reap some of the harvest, too! It'd be a win/win for everybody!
I would love to see this guy win and drive the Judge out of his house, In fact I woiuld like to see him build a Brothel there. But it aint gonna happen.
A prostitute already lives there. All they have to do is change the name of the place.
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.