If Mr. Clements is looking for investors to help build a hotel on top of Justice Souter’s house, he should set up a Web site with a Pay Pal donation link. I’d chip in.
Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter’s land.
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.
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 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 each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged.”
If the Supremes want to make up idiotic laws such as this, let’s make sure that they are amongst the first to be affected by them.
I almost ran off the road when I heard this on the radio today. I’d love to see this happen, but I read the website and the guy is looking for investors, so I wonder if it’s plausible.
Furthermore, the process itself is not easy. First, an area is zoned for a use…commercial, residential, office, etc. If there is a proposal to replace the use, then there must be a rezoning. That is handled by a City Planning Commission and there are specific criteria involved in decision making. Each town has their own criteria but in general it boils down to about 10 points including continuity with the surrounding area, agreement with the city comprehensive plan, adequacy of utilities, etc. A public hearing is also held so neighbors (that definition varies from state to state) and others can voice their concerns or support. Then the Planning Commission votes on the rezoning. If they pass the rezoning, then it goes to the City Council. The Council can approve or reject the Planning Commission’s recommendation. This process can take years all by itself and even be challenged in court. All this has to be done in addition to any eminent domain actions. I don’t know the eminent domain process, but I’m sure rezoning would be the first consideration.
In the case of the Lost Liberty Hotel, I expect the property is zoned residential so you’re looking at a long road ahead with lots of avenues for the City to object to the proposal before eminant domain is even an issue. So, don’t hold your breath…BUT…and the important thing is…that jerk of a supreme court justice and his cohorts are getting a message and I hope our Congressional lawmakers are getting a message too.
Also, I hope (but I doubt) the American public realizes that LIBERAL supreme court judges made this decision and that if they don’t want to lose any more of their liberties (few left), they better support Bush’s Supreme Court judical nominations.
Dianne,
Nothing worth doing is easy, and I for one will chip in my Christmas bonus this year, if it helps educate our arrogant public servants in reminding them that they are beholding to you and I and not the other way around.
Bush’s nominees are marginally better than what the other side would offer us, but only marginally. We need libertarian judges if we hope to reverse bad rulings and we need a libertarian Congress if we want to repeal bad laws.
Cheers!