NFB- Supreme Court Rules Cities May Seize Homes

[TraceZ]

.

Well there is, but.... thats talk for another forum

So what is it? We can talk about it here.

[Red20170]

So what is it? We can talk about it here

Sorry, I figured this was starting to get a little off the subject.
Discussing violent means to revoke power from government. Is not a popular subject. Plus not appropriate for this board. I do think we are making the same point.

[Joe 1320]

It is really too bad that politics has become a career.

In my opinion, that's the most prophetic statement in the thread. So much can be alluded to because of that on simple thought.

[Jeff_in_Atl]

Well that didn't take long.
"Just hours after the Supreme Court's decision Thursday, Freeport officials began efforts to seize waterfront property from two seafood companies as part of an $8 million marina development, according to a report by Chronicle correspondent Thayer Evans."
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...siness/3240725
"It's a strange day in America when we rely on state laws to clarify the U.S. Constitution. Yet that's all that stands between our little white houses and the parking lot."

[Rhode Island Red]

YOU'RE GONNA LOVE THIS !!!

Apparently one New Hampshire Residient is using the new court ruling to his advantage ... to build a hotel on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter

http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) 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."

Clements indicated that 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.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne 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' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.

[Joe 1320]

Apparently one New Hampshire Residient is using the new court ruling to his advantage ... to build a hotel on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter

If this is indeed real, what a cruel irony. Now that is how to go about making a point.

[Steel2686]

I hope it happens. If this fizzles out and we hear nothing more about it, the media's true colors will be blinding.

[Dave M]

I'd gladly go stay in that hotel! Even if there wasn't squat to do around there, they'd get my money! I hope it gets built, maybe then the Supreme Court will change it's tune. I can't see the board approving it though.

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

That is f$%^ing AWESOME!!!!!!!!

Best idea EVER!

[Dave M]

Here's the reply I got from my senator (short and to the point):

I was appalled by the court’s decision. Sen. Piccola has introduced legislation to give more power to the state & I am a co-sponser

[Jay 02 TA ws6]

Did you spell sponsor wrong? Or did your senator?

[Gary94Formula]

OK.... I'm going to go after Hillary and Bill Clinton's place here in NY. They are never there anyway, and I'm sure they don't pay taxes like normal people. I think I'm going to call it " I got screwed too"....

[Jeff_in_Atl]

Here is something you can do to protest the eminent domain crap. Land is essentially dirt right. Well mail the supreme court justices some dirt. Their addresses are at the bottom of the link.
http://www.freeliberal.com/archives/001138.html

[Dave M]

Jay, I copied and pasted that reply, so that would be my senator (and before anybody makes any wise cracks... she's a republican!) I have a feeling she just had a thousand emails to answer, so was doing it quickly. It kinda ticks me off though, that I took care to sound intelligent in my letter to her, and then I get that for a reply.

[ONLNTM5]

When I see that response from the senator, I get a visual in my mind of an intern typing a form letter type response, and copying and pasting it a thousand times a day