Kelo vs. City of New London
Below are two articles regarding the recent "Kelo vs. City of New London" Supreme Court case. The decision just adds to the already “sad state of affairs” we are experiencing, though the second article is certainly a clever response.
Assoicated Press
Updated: 12:23 p.m. ET June 23, 2005
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people’s homes and businesses — even against their will — for private economic development.
It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.
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 5-4 ruling — assailed by dissenting Justice Sandra Day O’Connor as handing “disproportionate influence and power” to the well-heeled — represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex.
Those residents 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.
Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to “just compensation” for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. But 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.”
Jobs, tax revenue cited.
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 that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including — but by no means limited to — new jobs and increased tax revenue,” Stevens wrote.
He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
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.
“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 Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Thomas filed a separate opinion to argue that seizing homes for private development, even with “just compensation,” is unconstitutional.
“The consequences of today’s decision are not difficult to predict, and promise to be harmful,” Thomas wrote. “So-called ’urban renewal’ programs provide some compensation for the properties they take, but no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted.”
Homeowners refused to budge
The case involves Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., who filed a lawsuit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes to clear the way for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.
The residents had refused to budge, arguing it was an unjustified taking of their property.
“I’m not willing to give up what I have just because someone else can generate more taxes here,” said homeowner Matthew Dery, whose family has lived in the neighborhood known as Fort Trumbull for more than 100 years.
New London contends the condemnations are proper because the development plans serving a “public purpose” — such as boosting economic growth — are valid “public use” projects that outweigh the property rights of the homeowners.
The Connecticut Supreme Court agreed with New London, ruling 4-3 in March 2004 that the mere promise of additional tax revenue justified the condemnation.
----
Free Star Media
Below is our letter to begin the development process.
Read our letter starting the project here.
Press Release
For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media
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.
Assoicated Press
Updated: 12:23 p.m. ET June 23, 2005
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled that local governments may seize people’s homes and businesses — even against their will — for private economic development.
It was a decision fraught with huge implications for a country with many areas, particularly the rapidly growing urban and suburban areas, facing countervailing pressures of development and property ownership rights.
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 5-4 ruling — assailed by dissenting Justice Sandra Day O’Connor as handing “disproportionate influence and power” to the well-heeled — represented a defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex.
Those residents 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.
Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to “just compensation” for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. But 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.”
Jobs, tax revenue cited.
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 that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including — but by no means limited to — new jobs and increased tax revenue,” Stevens wrote.
He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
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.
“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 Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
Thomas filed a separate opinion to argue that seizing homes for private development, even with “just compensation,” is unconstitutional.
“The consequences of today’s decision are not difficult to predict, and promise to be harmful,” Thomas wrote. “So-called ’urban renewal’ programs provide some compensation for the properties they take, but no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted.”
Homeowners refused to budge
The case involves Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., who filed a lawsuit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes to clear the way for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.
The residents had refused to budge, arguing it was an unjustified taking of their property.
“I’m not willing to give up what I have just because someone else can generate more taxes here,” said homeowner Matthew Dery, whose family has lived in the neighborhood known as Fort Trumbull for more than 100 years.
New London contends the condemnations are proper because the development plans serving a “public purpose” — such as boosting economic growth — are valid “public use” projects that outweigh the property rights of the homeowners.
The Connecticut Supreme Court agreed with New London, ruling 4-3 in March 2004 that the mere promise of additional tax revenue justified the condemnation.
----
Free Star Media
Below is our letter to begin the development process.
Read our letter starting the project here.
Press Release
For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media
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.
posted by Hold On at 2:37 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home