Supreme Court overstepping their boundaries - Page 4

scaeagles · 06-28-2005, 03:14 PM

While this is vengeful and probably wrong to hope for, I would love to see this actually happen:

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.

Scrooge McSam · 06-28-2005, 03:17 PM

HaHaHa I just saw that and was about to post on it.

Prudence · 06-28-2005, 03:31 PM

Yes! That is so delicious!

SacTown Chronic · 06-28-2005, 04:27 PM

Brilliant!!!

Motorboat Cruiser · 06-30-2005, 02:40 PM

Just popped in to post the same thing that was posted 2 days ago concerning Souter's home.

Don't know how I missed those posts?????

Anyway, this is my favorite part

Quote:

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.

Scrooge McSam · 08-19-2005, 04:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prudence

But wait, there's more!

And it just gets worse.

New London is claiming that the affected homeowners were living on city land for the duration of the lawsuit and owe back rent. It's a new definition of chutzpah: Confiscate land and charge back rent for the years the owners fought confiscation.

scaeagles · 08-19-2005, 06:49 AM

That's just sick. I'd say take it to court, but.....well, taking it to court over the land didn't do much, did it?

I am not an advocate for violence against government officials, but this would just about drive me to it.

Prudence · 08-19-2005, 08:05 AM

What the hell do they put in the water in that city? So, we're going to charge you rent, and at the current market rate, but we're going to take your land in exchange for the price it was 5 years ago. (And you just know that if land values had dropped significantly in 5 years, they'd be fighting to pay the contemporary value.)

And the sad thing is the city would probably win. That's how the city's laws were written. Unless the homeowners' attorney does have documentation that the city did agree to forgo rents.

Still, at some point you'd think they'd have some humanity! Just because you win your case doesn't mean you have to rub salt in the wounds. I could understand pursuing either rent or the 2000 property values. I might not like it, but to do otherwise could allow homeowners to derail projects by dragging out legislation until property values increase to a point where the porject is no longer feasible. But both? Egads! Take the high road already!

Of course, this could all have been prevented if the SC hadn't made such a bonehead ruling.

Alex · 08-19-2005, 02:18 PM

I would assume that there is existing legal precedent for what happens when an eminent domain confiscation happens.

The city confiscated the land five years ago and these people continued living there while contesting it. Based on other comments I've seen it appears that the owners were not paying property taxes over the last five years.

As wrong as I think the SCOTUS decision in Kelo was, this rent claim doesn't seem unreasonable. The city was deprived of income for five years while the tenants (wrongly, officially; rightly, in my opinion) contested the action. If I were the city and wanted to handle it as nicely as possible I'd offer them the option to either pay 5 years of property taxes or 5 years of market rent, whichever is cheaper.

The other issues is that the developer wants to pay compensation at 2000 rather than 2005 rates. And again I can see both sides (and you know that if the market had dropped, the homeowners would have wanted 2000 rather than 2005 rates). It seems to me that in cases of contested eminent domain, the compensation money should be put into escrow at the time of contestation and then the money goes to the appropriate recipient at the conclusion of the battle.

It really sucks, and it derives from what I think was a horrible decision by the Supreme Court, but based on that decision I have to side with the city and developer on the two new issues.

Scrooge McSam · 08-19-2005, 04:15 PM

But, Alex, did the imminent domain proceedings go through, or were they stopped while they were being contested?

Prudence?

06-28-2005, 03:14 PM	#31
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	While this is vengeful and probably wrong to hope for, I would love to see this actually happen: 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.
	Submit to Quotes

06-28-2005, 03:17 PM	#32
Scrooge McSam What? Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 1,635	HaHaHa I just saw that and was about to post on it.
	Submit to Quotes

06-28-2005, 03:31 PM	#33
Prudence Beelzeboobs, Esq. Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Gavel - I haz it Posts: 6,287	Yes! That is so delicious! __________________ traguna macoities tracorum satis de
	Submit to Quotes

06-28-2005, 04:27 PM	#34
SacTown Chronic the myth of the dream Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,217	Brilliant!!! __________________ Is it the fingers, or the brain that you're teaching a lesson?
	Submit to Quotes

08-19-2005, 06:49 AM	#37
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	That's just sick. I'd say take it to court, but.....well, taking it to court over the land didn't do much, did it? I am not an advocate for violence against government officials, but this would just about drive me to it.
	Submit to Quotes

08-19-2005, 08:05 AM	#38
Prudence Beelzeboobs, Esq. Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Gavel - I haz it Posts: 6,287	What the hell do they put in the water in that city? So, we're going to charge you rent, and at the current market rate, but we're going to take your land in exchange for the price it was 5 years ago. (And you just know that if land values had dropped significantly in 5 years, they'd be fighting to pay the contemporary value.) And the sad thing is the city would probably win. That's how the city's laws were written. Unless the homeowners' attorney does have documentation that the city did agree to forgo rents. Still, at some point you'd think they'd have some humanity! Just because you win your case doesn't mean you have to rub salt in the wounds. I could understand pursuing either rent or the 2000 property values. I might not like it, but to do otherwise could allow homeowners to derail projects by dragging out legislation until property values increase to a point where the porject is no longer feasible. But both? Egads! Take the high road already! Of course, this could all have been prevented if the SC hadn't made such a bonehead ruling. __________________ traguna macoities tracorum satis de
	Submit to Quotes

08-19-2005, 02:18 PM	#39
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	I would assume that there is existing legal precedent for what happens when an eminent domain confiscation happens. The city confiscated the land five years ago and these people continued living there while contesting it. Based on other comments I've seen it appears that the owners were not paying property taxes over the last five years. As wrong as I think the SCOTUS decision in Kelo was, this rent claim doesn't seem unreasonable. The city was deprived of income for five years while the tenants (wrongly, officially; rightly, in my opinion) contested the action. If I were the city and wanted to handle it as nicely as possible I'd offer them the option to either pay 5 years of property taxes or 5 years of market rent, whichever is cheaper. The other issues is that the developer wants to pay compensation at 2000 rather than 2005 rates. And again I can see both sides (and you know that if the market had dropped, the homeowners would have wanted 2000 rather than 2005 rates). It seems to me that in cases of contested eminent domain, the compensation money should be put into escrow at the time of contestation and then the money goes to the appropriate recipient at the conclusion of the battle. It really sucks, and it derives from what I think was a horrible decision by the Supreme Court, but based on that decision I have to side with the city and developer on the two new issues.
	Submit to Quotes

08-19-2005, 04:15 PM	#40
Scrooge McSam What? Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 1,635	But, Alex, did the imminent domain proceedings go through, or were they stopped while they were being contested? Prudence?
	Submit to Quotes