← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Quantrill
Thread ID: 18784 | Posts: 42 | Started: 2005-06-23
2005-06-23 15:10 | User Profile
[size=+2]Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes[/size] [size=-1]By HOPE YEN The Associated Press Thursday, June 23, 2005; 10:50 AM[/size]
WASHINGTON -- A divided Supreme Court ruled that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth conflicts with individual property rights.
Thursday's 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.
As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.
Local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community, justices said.
"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including _ but by no means limited to _ new jobs and increased tax revenue," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority.
He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."
Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.
New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has been a key swing vote on many cases before the court, issued a stinging dissent. She argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.
The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
She was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in recent years, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.
New London, a town of less than 26,000, once was a center of the whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub. More recently the city has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the country, with losses of residents and jobs.
The New London neighborhood that will be swept away includes Victorian-era houses and small businesses that in some instances have been owned by several generations of families. Among the New London residents in the case is a couple in their 80s who have lived in the same home for more than 50 years.
City officials envision a commercial development that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.
New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, which argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects such Baltimore's Inner Harbor and Kansas City's Kansas Speedway.
Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, Kelo and the other homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property.
The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.
[center]é 2005 The Associated Press [left][url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062300783_pf.html"]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/23/AR2005062300783_pf.html[/url] [/left] [/center]
2005-06-23 15:49 | User Profile
It's a good thing that Fascism & tyranny were defeated in 1945!
To the five black robed tyrants: May you all be exilled to Zimbabwe, where you can enjoy the fruits of a government run amok.
2005-06-23 17:39 | User Profile
It's now up to the states to protect property rights in their state constitutions.
2005-06-23 17:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]It's now up to the states to protect property rights in their state constitutions.[/QUOTE] True, but I doubt they will. Most states and cities are run by Chamber of Commerce-types these days. Why let a few private homes stand in the way of Progress, when there could be a new Wal-mart in that spot?
2005-06-23 19:01 | User Profile
*How many people think they own their own private property in this "free country"? Now if some rich, well-connected guys want your home, they can legally make you give it up.
My hat goes off to Bill Von Winkle (see quote below). He has the right attitude.
-- Angler*
[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050623/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_seizing_property_14;_ylt=Ah7xAs4ffnYs6_bjFpB2KgxuCM0A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl[/url]
Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes
By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 45 minutes ago
A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights.
The 5-4 ruling ââ¬â assailed by dissenting Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled in America ââ¬â was a defeat for Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They had argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.
As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.
The case was one of six resolved by justices on Thursday. Among those still pending for the court, which next meets on Monday, is one testing the constitutionality of displaying the Ten Commands on government property.
Writing for the court's majority in Thursday's ruling, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he said.
"The city has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including ââ¬â but by no means limited to ââ¬â new jobs and increased tax revenue," Stevens wrote.
Stevens was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing ââ¬â David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. The bloc typically has favored greater deference to cities, which historically have used the takings power for urban renewal projects that benefit the lower and middle class.
They were joined by Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy in rejecting the conservative principle of individual property rights. Critics had feared that would allow a small group of homeowners to stymie rebuilding efforts that benefit the city through added jobs and more tax revenue for social programs.
"It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area," Stevens wrote.
O'Connor argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.
"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."
Connecticut residents involved in the lawsuit expressed dismay and pledged to keep fighting.
"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."
Scott Bullock, an attorney for the Institute for Justice representing the families, added: "A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong today and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result."
At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."
Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.
New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.
Connecticut state Rep. Ernest Hewett, D-New London, a former mayor and city council member who voted in favor of eminent domain, said the decision "means a lot for New London's future."
The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.
Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in recent years, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.
New London, a town of less than 26,000, once was a center of the whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub. More recently the city has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the country, with losses of residents and jobs.
City officials envision a commercial development that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.
New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, which argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects such Baltimore's Inner Harbor and Kansas City's Kansas Speedway.
Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, Kelo and the other homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property.
The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.
2005-06-23 19:09 | User Profile
WASHINGTON - A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights. The 5-4 ruling ââ¬â assailed by dissenting Justice Sanday Day O'Connor as handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled in America ââ¬â was a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex.
2005-06-23 19:11 | User Profile
Angler, This thread has already been posted here -- [url="http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18784"]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18784[/url]
2005-06-23 19:15 | User Profile
PD, This thread has already been started here -- [url="http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18784"]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18784[/url]
2005-06-23 19:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]PD, This thread has already been started here -- [url="http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18784"]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18784[/url][/QUOTE] Yep, it is a current event...
Just because they are jews or queers---don't make them liberals.
2005-06-23 19:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]True, but I doubt they will. Most states and cities are run by Chamber of Commerce-types these days. Why let a few private homes stand in the way of Progress, when there could be a new Wal-mart in that spot?[/QUOTE] It puts the hurts to the home owner or home owners who are forced into attending meetings and hiring a lawyer or lawyers to defend their home. Even if it is futile to attempt to save your property---to get your best price you will have to go kicking and screaming. (btw, as I have mentioned before screaming in a politicians ear is one way to get remembered) :twisted:
2005-06-23 19:54 | User Profile
Remember those old Bugs Bunny/Warner Bros. cartoons where they wanted to build a highway or building and Elmer Fudd's or Bug's houses were in the way?? The bad guys would try to terrorise Fudd or Bugs to give up the house, yet they always failed. The new highway or building ended up being re-routed around the existing house.
That's what I think of what America used to mean; the little guy has rights. Oh well, another piece of Old America has fallen away today.
2005-06-23 20:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Thursday's 5-4 ruling represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex[/QUOTE]
No it represents about the last nail in the coffin of the Bill of Rights. Search and Seizure laws have been gutted, Private Property Rights now have been destroyed, Look out Free Speech your next....
Sad Sad Day
2005-06-23 20:24 | User Profile
[QUOTE=jeffersonian]No it represents about the last nail in the coffin of the Bill of Rights. Search and Seizure laws have been gutted, Private Property Rights now have been destroyed, Look out Free Speech your next....
Sad Sad Day[/QUOTE] Bro, free speech is already gone. SCOTUS has upheld CFR and the "mandated speech" cases. It is a short, happy journey from there to hate crime laws passing constitutional muster.
2005-06-23 21:15 | User Profile
If government officials have the ââ¬Ërightââ¬â¢ to tax your home or put a road through it, why not take it and put up an office building for one of their buddies.
2005-06-23 22:29 | User Profile
This decision doesn't bother me tremendously. It's really nothing more than two competing values, both of which are perfectly legitimate. Of course private ownership of land isn't absolute. It never has been. Landowners have to pay taxes and comply with often-reasonable zoning restrictions. That really is... for the good of the community. Would you want your next-door neighbor building a skyscraper? Nope.
But of course, the eminent domain system can and probably has been heavily abused by more powerful monied interests. I wouldn't want to be booted from my home. I don't know the particulars of the Connecticut case, so I don't know if this was an abuse.
But I do think there are times when the individual should not be allowed to stand in the way of something that is for the good of the community. If one man upstream were damming the stream for his exclusive benefit while the rest of the town was dry, I'd blow up his dam and him, too, if he challenged me.
I think this is an example of the rabidly ideological Randies at IJ (who funded the challenge and with whom I'm often sympathetic) getting all hot to trot over something that isn't really such a big deal. It's just not an obviously ideological case.
It could well be an example of whites going extreme on one particular issue because they can't go extreme where it counts --- in defense of the race. I'm crafting a theory about this: white conservatives go nuts on issues like abortion, guns and gays. But it really has not effect on our wider culture and policy. It's just a little hat you wear. "I'm pro-life!" Big effen' deal. You're concerned about the unborn, but Jose, Julio and Emilio are urinating in the 7-11 parking lot in front of your white daughter and there ain't squirt you can do about it.
Do you think whites would be more reasonable about other issues if there were more racial homogeneity?
2005-06-23 22:39 | User Profile
[QUOTE]This decision doesn't bother me tremendously. It's really nothing more than two competing values, both of which are perfectly legitimate.[/QUOTE]
The problem with your analysis is that the "two competing values" are those of the individual and those of the state, or in the Conn. case the local Municipality.
The homeowner and his family had for over 100 years enjoyed the right of quiet enjoyment on his personal real property all the while abiding by zoning, tax, etc. etc. etc. laws, the State decides that the "greater good" is served, by forcing this homeowner off his land for no better reason than they can collect more taxes by rezoning and putting up a marina and shops.
I don't beleive that is what the founders intended. It smacks of socialism.
Oh well at least the wise supreme court found that there is a absolute right to sodomy in the constitution. Nothing amiss there.
2005-06-23 23:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]It's now up to the states to protect property rights in their state constitutions.[/QUOTE]It should always be up to the states. Bad state laws haven't done near the damage of Roe v. Wade and Brown v. the Board of Education.
2005-06-24 00:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE]The problem with your analysis is that the "two competing values" are those of the individual and those of the state, or in the Conn. case the local Municipality. [/QUOTE]
**[color=black]Time Out...this ruling says the local government can take your home/property, and, give your home/property to another private individual!
This must be that jew law, that the butt ugly jewess Ginsburg, and the other two queers/ kikes Bryer and Souter think so much of...it sure ain't American. :bash:
[/color]**
2005-06-24 00:28 | User Profile
This country was founded by the people and for the people......
What do I have to say about all this?
"When the government stops protecting the people it is then the duty of the people to take over the government for the people are the government."
...Ponce
2005-06-24 00:35 | User Profile
And the sad thing is, no one will do anything about it.
2005-06-24 02:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Quantrill]Angler, This thread has already been posted here -- [url="http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18784"]http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18784[/url][/QUOTE] Oops...okay, thanks. (Looks like a moderator already joined it to this one -- cool.)
2005-06-24 02:52 | User Profile
Now Anti-Christians can get elected to local governments, take Churches to build tax based property. Voila no more Christian churches. :disgust:
2005-06-24 03:17 | User Profile
If you are in the mood to read the opinion of the court: [url]http://wid.ap.org/documents/scotus/050623kelo.pdf[/url]
I read thru the oral arguements today, and the butt ugly jewess Ginsburg reads like an old sheenie trying to trap a customer and make a sale. The attorney for the homeowners just didn't know how to handle the old kike hag...:hitler:
2005-06-24 03:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]This country was founded by the people and for the people......
What do I have to say about all this?
"When the government stops protecting the people it is then the duty of the people to take over the government for the people are the government." ...Ponce[/QUOTE] May I qoute a founding father?
"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much to forget it." - James Madison
2005-06-24 13:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]It could well be an example of whites going extreme on one particular issue because they can't go extreme where it counts --- in defense of the race. I'm crafting a theory about this: white conservatives go nuts on issues like abortion, guns and gays. But it really has not effect on our wider culture and policy. It's just a little hat you wear. "I'm pro-life!" Big effen' deal. You're concerned about the unborn, but Jose, Julio and Emilio are urinating in the 7-11 parking lot in front of your white daughter and there ain't squirt you can do about it.
Do you think whites would be more reasonable about other issues if there were more racial homogeneity?[/QUOTE]
Hugh, hell yes. I think it's part of the FOX NEWS phenomenon, where the Jews, sensing the White man's growing anger with de facto multicultural government-mandated policy and White racial decline, needed to create a "White man's safety valve" for said White man to be able to vent his anger, but under strict and monitored control and pre-approved targets.
The plan has worked marvelously. The Jews hold up the pre-approved "target" and the White "conservative" shoots, something like a shooting game you find at the local state fair. Commies, Ay-rabs, the Frenchies, the UN, the evil liberals, liberal judges, gays (a little bit), and Mexican immigrants (latest boogeyman, now allowed to be hated). However, the disingenous Jews never, ever under any circumstances allow the White man to express his anger towards his greatest and most destructive enemies nor the root of the disease we face, while steering the "angry white man" away from any form of White Nationalism/Solidarity or White seperatism.
Of course, the Fox News crowd will rant with foaming mouths over the Supreme Court decision and blame it squarely on the Liberals, Leftists, and Michael Moore. While I dislike the SCOTUS' ruling immensely, I understand that this is just another symptom of the disease--the terminal cancer that the US faces--and it's not worth it to be angry over the decision while America is a decrepit, coerced, de facto multiracial, multicultural, emasculated, hell-hole. It's time to give up and let God's Will decide our fate.
2005-06-24 14:21 | User Profile
Xmetalhead...it's pretty obvious and brazen that the two or two and a half jews, and their shabbos goy/homosexual followers have decided to use Talmudic law as the basis of their decision making process...good old jew-marxist-universal-666-logic :shocking:.
2005-06-24 15:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]This decision doesn't bother me tremendously. It's really nothing more than two competing values, both of which are perfectly legitimate. Of course private ownership of land isn't absolute. It never has been. Landowners have to pay taxes and comply with often-reasonable zoning restrictions. That really is... for the good of the community. Would you want your next-door neighbor building a skyscraper? Nope.[/QUOTE] Hugh, The concept of eminent domain is legitimate, and has its roots in English common law going back hundreds of years. If the community needs someone's property for something that is truly in the public interest, then the community has the right to take that land from that individual by providing just compensation. Although this is sometimes abused, I have no objection to the concept. However, that is NOT what this case is about. This case says that the government may use eminent domain to seize an individual's private property simply to give it to another private citizen. That is a completely different animal. The government can now seize your house, so that some rich guy can build a strip mall there, or a Wal-mart, or a cookie cutter subdivision. The court has stretched the concept of 'public interest' to mean 'anything that would bring in more tax money than what is on the land now.' Theoretically, if an interested party simply promised to build a bigger house on the property, he could petition the government to seize it, because he would pay more in property taxes. This decision is madness.
2005-06-24 15:57 | User Profile
Mr. Q---What you are saying is all true...this is a taking of a home or property by a local government, and that home or property being given to another "person". Let's not forget that corporations are "persons".
Sure, as the a$$hole from Columbia Law School said, there will have to be "hearings" before the property can be taken...so you can spend a fortune on lawyers and other jew whores and in the end still have your home taken from you. :censored:
2005-06-24 16:17 | User Profile
Time to teach our children well, folks...
2005-06-24 16:50 | User Profile
Hey, there Herr Whitebread...I'm waiting to hear the Talmudic justification of taking a person's home and giving it to another person...I'm sure the kikes will be spinning this for jew Ginsburg, jew Breyer and their shabbos goy...btw...what's the plural of goy? Goyim? I'm sure one of the kike lawyers must know---we should ask them. :argue:
2005-06-24 21:57 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]The Jews hold up the pre-approved "target" and the White "conservative" shoots, something like a shooting game you find at the local state fair. Commies, Ay-rabs, the Frenchies, the UN, the evil liberals, liberal judges, gays (a little bit), and Mexican immigrants (latest boogeyman, now allowed to be hated). However, the disingenous Jews never, ever under any circumstances allow the White man to express his anger towards his greatest and most destructive enemies nor the root of the disease we face, while steering the "angry white man" away from any form of White Nationalism/Solidarity or White seperatism.[/QUOTE]
You nailed it.
And herein lies the danger of running too freely on the Jew-constructed planks that allow you to bash Arabs and, lately, Mexicans. On the one hand, we shouldn't lull ourselves into thinking that Arabs and Mexicans are our friends. On the other, we shouldn't overindulge unloading on them because that only saps the energy needed to focus on them. Of course they delight in watching us empty clips into false targets: when we come 'round to them, no more bullets!
I think the best course is to keep up the heat in a uniform manner, stressing that Jews, like the Hispanics now invading us, are a specific ethnic group with self-preseveration and advancement in mind, and that necessarily conflicts with white group interests.
I liked Linder's line (picked up by the ADL) about Jews and Arabs:
[url]http://www.adl.org/terrorism_america/[/url]
Neither Judaism nor Islam, Linder argues, are compatible with the "White West." He concludes by telling both Jews and Arabs to [B]"go battle it out among yourselves, foul Semites, in some stinking desert far, far away."[/B]
2005-06-24 22:17 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Hugh Lincoln]You nailed it.
And herein lies the danger of running too freely on the Jew-constructed planks that allow you to bash Arabs and, lately, Mexicans. On the one hand, we shouldn't lull ourselves into thinking that Arabs and Mexicans are our friends. On the other, we shouldn't overindulge unloading on them because that only saps the energy needed to focus on them. [B]Of course they delight in watching us empty clips into false targets: when we come 'round to them, no more bullets! [/B][/QUOTE]
No doubt Hugh. Especially with the latest SCOTUS ruling. Of course, it's plain to see which judges ruled in favor of government land grabs. We'll have to wait and see if the people catch onto that.
2005-06-25 21:08 | User Profile
Wouldn't suprise me if a local politician gets a shot in the crotch over this: [url]http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/240605newdevelopments.htm[/url]
2005-06-26 07:00 | User Profile
So what's next, does this go back to the supremes court, or does Congress do something? (shudder):gunsmilie Second Amendment.
2005-06-26 13:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=BlueBonnet]So what's next, does this go back to the supremes court, or does Congress do something? (shudder):gunsmilie Second Amendment.[/QUOTE] I'm sure the legal logic of the "home taking" decision by Ginsburg, Bryer, and the shabbos goy can be found here: [url]http://www.come-and-hear.com/tindex.html[/url]
This ruling really opens the door wide to jew mischief in our cities and towns.
2005-06-29 11:19 | User Profile
THIS LAND WAS YOUR LAND Supreme Court justice faces boot from home? 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 ââ¬â who voted in favor of a controversial decision allowing a city to take residents' homes for private development ââ¬â 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 ââ¬â "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.
[url]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45029[/url]
2005-06-29 23:49 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Blond Knight]It's a good thing that Fascism & tyranny were defeated in 1945!
To the five black robed tyrants: May you all be exilled to Zimbabwe, where you can enjoy the fruits of a government run amok.[/QUOTE] People are starting to stand up and see what we have become,
[url="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/letters.asp"]http://www.worldnetdaily.com/letters.asp[/url]
How many people will walk the walk,we will see?
2005-06-30 02:36 | User Profile
I can't wait for the Liberty Hotel to be built. I want to book a room and steal the towels.:twisted:
2005-06-30 14:48 | User Profile
One advantage to this is the local government can go into a ghetto and throw the living crap out of town, then rebuild the blight into something useful.
2005-07-09 04:50 | User Profile
Edgar Steele on this issue:
[url]http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/columns/madashell.htm[/url]
Also:[url]http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/rants/liver.htm[/url]
Nickel Rant ââ¢: Kelo, Roe and the President's Liver by Edgar J. Steele
July 7, 2005
Good: mp3 audio, .8 mb: [url]http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/rants/liver16-16.mp3[/url] streaming mp3 Better: mp3 audio, 1.6 mb: [url]http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/rants/liver32-24.mp3[/url] streaming mp3 Best: mp3 audio, 2.4 mb: [url]http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/rants/liver48-44.mp3[/url] streaming mp3
Last Nickel Rant: 6/28/05 - "Trollops in Black Robes" [url]http://www.conspiracypenpal.com/rants/trollop16-16.mp3[/url] streaming mp3
My name is Edgar J. Steele and this is a Nickel Rant.
The recent flurry of decisions handed down by the US Supreme Court has been particularly illuminating. Now there can be no mistaking where we ordinary American citizens stand, vis-ÃÂ -vis our increasingly-imperial and imperious government: It owns us, lock, stock and barrel. We are like cattle, the term that so many of the Chosen use amongst themselves to refer to the rest of us. Can you say, "moo?" We are a commodity, to be managed and periodically plucked and harvested.
What's that? You think this is a joke? You haven't been paying attention.
It didn't begin recently, either. In reality, Roe vs. Wade, the landmark ruling on abortion, laid down the template quite some time ago. People didn't notice because the issue of abortion is so imbued with religious overtones. Fact is, Roe stands for the proposition that human life is dispensable at human whim, with that whim subject to government fiat.
Wait a minute. Before you leave the room, hear me out. We don't need any religious claptrap for this conclusion.
We human beings largely are products of our inherited genetic structure, just like every other living creature. Scientists increasingly are surprised to learn just how much behavior is inherited. Personality, to a great degree, is locked in at the same time sex is determined: the moment of conception. In animals, we call this "instinct," then pretend we don't understand it. I haven't room for it in five minutes, but I go into the topic of our DNA being what I call "behavior gone to seed" in excruciating detail in my book, Defensive Racism. It has nothing to do with believing in either Creation or Evolution. In other words, we already are most of what will be important for the balance of our lives at the very outset!
Abortion is a line-drawing exercise, admit it. Just how different is an 8-month, 30-day-old "fetus" in the womb from a 1-day old baby? Are you against killing newborn babies? Then you oppose killing them the day before they are born, no doubt. How far back does one go? After much thought, my conclusion is inescapable: the moment of conception. In reality, a woman's right to choose should be the traditional one: whether to have sex, the biological purpose of which is reproduction.
What does abortion have to do with Kelo, the recent landmark decision wherein the Supreme Court said government can take private real estate from one person and give it to another who is willing to pay more property taxes on it? They are the same decision. The same rationale. Government owns everything and can dictate everything's usage. There is no private property anymore. There is no privacy. There is nothing but government fiat now.
Government liens against estates for old-age medical care are becoming common, as so many surprised heirs are learning.
Recent changes in bankruptcy law will return us to the days of lifetime bondage, with tax liens at the forefront of debts that survive a declaration of bankruptcy.
Gun laws are tightening and Kelo harkens the near-term arrival of gun confiscation in America. Most of the Supreme Court Justices already have gone on record as favoring complete realignment of American law with UN and European law. That includes gun bans, of course. After all, now that they can take your home to generate more tax revenue, they can take anything they want. And they don't need warrants anymore, don't forget. Nor do they need trials to keep property.
All pretense of our being subject to the original Constitution now has been abandoned. That means, of course, that the Declaration of Independence also is a dead letter. Think about that for a moment.
Lessee now: Kelo, Roe....oh, yes, the President's liver. What does the President's liver have to do with today's subject? Well, if the Supreme Court says that government can remove unborn babies and kill them and can take our homes because it wants more tax money, then how great a step is it to claim that the nation's welfare demands that the President gets a new liver if he needs one? Question is, whose will it be? An organ donor's? What if there isn't one available? China takes them from prison inmates. Mine? Maybe it will be yours. After all, the President arguably represents a greater public benefit, just like taking your home can produce a greater public benefit. Again, can you say, "moo?"
I don't know about you, but I have had enough. Enough intrusion. Enough taking. Enough government, which has insinuated itself into every nook and cranny of my life. We have to do something. We have to stop them. Already, we have gone beyond mere slavery and become commodities. The time has come to do something about our totally out-of-control government!
Already, however, it is too late. Walk down any street. Do you really see anything except complacent and compliant cattle? Just who do you think is going to be doing anything about America? Whose job is it? It sure isn't the government's. Is it mine? Is it yours?
My name is Edgar J. Steele. Thanks for listening. Check my web site at [url]www.ConspiracyPenPal.com[/url] for other messages just like this one.
2005-07-09 05:40 | User Profile
Like Roe, expect Kelo to be implemented quickly, and with vigor.
Look [I]around [/I] you. Municipal governments in both cities and towns are leaking money like sieves. How high can they keep pushing up taxes to keep themselves afloat? But grabbing private property as an adjunct presents a neat way for them to raise new revenue to keep those vital school-lunches for illegal rugrats and predator pickaninnies going, as well as those diversity seminars and AIDS education classes. And hey -[B]some[/B]body's gotta pay for all those high-security measures now [I]de rigeur [/I] in Lockdown-State America. And the guy next door to the guy whose house gets 'seized' will be so happy it's not him being screwed, his timorous silence will be construed as 'consent'. Hell, if his taxes manage [I]not [/I] to go up that year, that'll be good enough for him.
That's just looking at this 'law' from a viewpoint of tapped-out local governments seeking new quick-fix revenue sources. It doesn't even [I]begin [/I] to touch upon the measure's limitless potential for abuse as a method of punishing and crushing dissent, defiance....even the merely-disagreeable will be at risk. Homeowners with confederate-flag displays, or lawn jockeys, or even questionable magazine-subscriptions may find the locks changed on them one day in the [I]very [/I] near future.
But you can make book on two things:
1- municipal governments being as inept/corrupt as they are these days, all seized property will be sold at twenty cents on the dollar - to cronies and wardheelers. Cook County in Illinois has been pioneering this new vogue in seizure laws with draconian auto-impound measures for the last year or so. Between the costs of impounding and warehousing - and the fact that all the autos seized were then sold for two hundred dollars or so apiece to sleazy resellers juiced into the system with city contracts - it's estimated that the county loses money on every seizure. The answer? [B]More seizures! [/B] (Just because a law is [I]evil [/I] doesn't mean it won't be enforced by people who are [I]stupid[/I], as well.)
2- if you plan to have even [B]local [/B] media take your side and pressure the municipality in question into reversing course and abandoning future action against you, [I]by God [/I] you'd better be black, or Mexican, or Chinese, or a "Holocaust survivor", or the child of a "Holocaust survivor", or a queer, or sit on some editorial board or tv station's board of directors. You'd [U]better[/U] not be wasting everybody's time by turning out to be just [I]another [/I] white dullard standing in everybody's way, demanding his nonexistant "rights". Unless you can present some evidence that you merit special treatment...like a black wife, or a doctor's prescription for AIDS-suppressing medication.....[I]step aside,[/I] and gangway for New America!
2005-07-09 17:09 | User Profile
[QUOTE]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. [/QUOTE] Great stuff.