Reference no: EM131961464

THIS LAND WAS YOUR LAND SUPREME COURT JUSTICE  FACES BOOT FROM HOME?

Developer wants 'Lost Liberty Hotel' built upon property of David Souter

A libertarian activist contacted the local government in Supreme Court Justice David Souter's hometown in New Hampshire yesterday asking that the property of the judge - who voted in favor of a controversial decision allowing a city to take residents' homes for private development - 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 Caf?" 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 - "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.

Create a Thread and discuss the below questions, explaining why you feel the way you do:

An argument in favor of what the U.S. Supreme Court did in Kelo is that although some individuals are displaced they are paid well for their land and the majority of the community benefits. The philosophy of Utilitarianism supports this result. It says a moral act is one which provides the greatest good for the greatest number.

1. What are the pros and cons of this philosophy?

It makes somewhat sense as to why under certain circumstances there is a need for the U.S. Supreme Court to side with what the beneficial factors are to society when it comes to certain developments. I feel that it would need to be a moral act that makes sense just as stated that it should provide the greatest good for the greatest number.

It makes a lot of sense in certain case scenarios where if in certain areas that would need to have a hospital built in order for public to use in case of emergencies or certain health needs. I personally would be willing to settle and find somewhere else to move for this cause.

The cons of following the philosophy of Utilitarianism would be as if instead of building a hospital and goes right on ahead and builds a large x-rated adult shop would be a terrible thing to do. This would look bad through all aspects of the idea or build and would not be morally beneficial or good for the greatest number of people in the area.

2. Do you agree with this philosophy as applied to the situation in Kelo?

In reference to the Kelo case, it was a very sad story and the outcome did not result in any good in the end. It was not morally or ethically right to take over the land that Kelo and others lived on.

The story has not ever fulfilled its purpose or reasoning. It was unjust and did not seem to have precedence. It was nice to hear that the public stood up to say the least and leaving a historical imprint so that it doesn't happen again, at least hopefully.