Kelo v. Souter (snicker)
Jun. 30th, 2005 12:31 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
libertangoFor those who don't know, one of the cases the US Supreme Court decided last week was Kelo v. City of New London. This was a case regarding the idea of eminent domain, and the ability of local governments to condemn property.
A number of people have been concerned that Kelo has set the bar so low for eminent domain -- essentially, there must be a plan, and the intent (not even the expectation) of a "public good" such as increased tax revenue -- that it can be abused in a number of ways, primarily through sheer cronyism and desire to make a quick buck. David Sucher, at City Comforts, has been saying this fairly persuasively.
Well, now comes the fun part. Someone in New Hampshire has decided to stick it to the man. To wit, there is a group going to the Towne of Weare, NH, proposing economic development in the form of building a hotel -- on the site of Justice David Souter's house. From their press release:
"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."
I don't expect a swords and ploughshares exchange program any time soon.
A number of people have been concerned that Kelo has set the bar so low for eminent domain -- essentially, there must be a plan, and the intent (not even the expectation) of a "public good" such as increased tax revenue -- that it can be abused in a number of ways, primarily through sheer cronyism and desire to make a quick buck. David Sucher, at City Comforts, has been saying this fairly persuasively.
Well, now comes the fun part. Someone in New Hampshire has decided to stick it to the man. To wit, there is a group going to the Towne of Weare, NH, proposing economic development in the form of building a hotel -- on the site of Justice David Souter's house. From their press release:
"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."
I don't expect a swords and ploughshares exchange program any time soon.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 11:14 am (UTC)How help Logan Darrow Clements?
Date: 2005-06-30 02:27 pm (UTC)It will be fun to see where this goes. How do we contact Towne of Weare's city hall to let them know we'd love to read from Clements' hotel? Is anyone talking about a chain of five hotels? One for each justice?
no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 05:38 pm (UTC)Discussion
Date: 2005-06-30 07:46 pm (UTC)Did you perhaps mean this post on PrawfsBlog, that SCOTUSBlog points to?
Re: Discussion
Date: 2005-06-30 08:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-30 05:50 pm (UTC)