Kiss Your House Goodbye

[thedrifter]

Kiss Your House Goodbye
By Christopher Orlet
Published 6/24/2005 12:08:16 AM


Many Americans are perplexed that it was the liberals on the U.S. Supreme Court, and not the conservatives, who voted 5-4 to affirm Kelo v. City of New London. The decision allows local governments to seize homes and businesses and hand them over to private developers. It shouldn't surprise. Liberals, like their socialist friends, have never been too keen on private property rights. It has been Conservatives that have historically looked out for the rights of the property owner and the taxpayer.

Indeed the liberal majority on the U.S. Supreme Court is so determined to give government more authority over its citizenry and more power to tax that it is willing to sacrifice the rights of the small home and business owner.

In his majority opinion Justice Stevens wrote, "Because [New London Development Corporation's] plan unquestionably serves a public purpose, the takings challenged here satisfy the Fifth Amendment....Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the Court has recognized." In other words, possible economic development and in particular increased tax revenues trump private property rights. Some wealthy guy wants to build his home where yours currently sits, kiss your house goodbye. Some fly-by-night corporation wants to put up a shopping mall on 40 acres of your family farm, better start packing.

In fact, fly-by-night corporations are fine, the Court held, when it rejected the defendants' argument that for takings of this kind the Court should require a "reasonable certainty" that the expected public benefits will actually accrue.

In her dissent Justice Sandra Day O'Connor showed incredible foresight when she wrote, "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.....Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms....As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result."

Joining O'Connor in her dissent were Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas. Stevens was joined in the majority by Ginsburg, Breyer, Kennedy, and Souter.

Mike Cristofaro, a working class homeowner whose family has owned property in Fort Trumbull for more than 30 years, will be one of the first victims of the Court-sanctioned land grab. "I'm astonished the Court would permit the government to throw out my family from their home so that private developers can make more money," he said shortly after the decision was announced. Apparently Mr. Cristofaro was until now unfamiliar with the liberal philosophy.

Far from being a slum, the Fort Trumbull neighborhood in New London was made up of average working-class homes, many with fine ocean-front views. That was the problem. The government felt the property was too nice for working-class folks. The liberals on the Supreme Court agreed. "We're pleased," the attorney for the New London Development Corporation told the Associated Press.

From now on no one's property is safe. Once liberals stood for the rights of the working man. Yesterday's ruling proves that that was all a sham. It is big government that liberals stand for, and anything that gives government more power and authority is fair game.


Ellie

[thedrifter]

"From The Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The Founders believed that our rights come from God, and the government’s powers come from us. So the Constitution can’t list all our rights, but it can and does list all the federal government’s powers.

There it is in a nutshell: The way this republic was meant to function.

"The government felt the property was too nice for working-class folks."

Ellie

[thedrifter]

THE END OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS
Neal Boortz
June 24, 2005

I cannot remember being more dismayed at a court ruling, and this includes the occasional ruling against me when I was practicing law. What ruling? Just in case you don't already know, the United States Supreme Court yesterday issued a ruling that goes a long way toward destroying private property rights in this country.

Background. The Fifth Amendment to our Constitution restricts the government's right of eminent domain. It does not, as I heard so many commentators say yesterday, grant a right of eminent domain, it restricts it. The right of eminent domain was assumed as a basic part of English Common Law. The Fifth Amendment merely said that government could not exercise this right for a public use without paying for it. The exact working is "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

For hundreds of years the term "public use" was interpreted to mean use for something like a school, library, police or fire station, power transmission lines, roads, bridges or some other facility owned and operated by government for the benefit of the general population. As politicians became more and more impressed with their own power they started to expand this definition of public use.

The new theory is that increasing the property taxes paid on a parcel of property is a public use. Increasing the number of people who can be employed by a business located on a particular piece of property can also be a public use. This would mean that government would be free to seize private property if it can be handed to a developer who will redevelop the property so as to increase the property taxes paid or the number of people employed. This is the theory that was validated by the Supreme Court yesterday in its ruling approving just such a private property seizure in New London, Connecticut. As Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said in her dissent, this decision renders virtually all private property vulnerable to government confiscation.

Bottom line: If you own property, and the government wants that property --- you're screwed. You now own your private property only at the pleasure of government; and that means that you own your property, be it your home, your business or a piece of investment real estate only at the pleasure of the local controlling politicians.

Let me give you a few real-life examples of just how politicians can now use this Supreme Court decision. In considering these examples, please remember one of the first rules of politics: There is absolutely no limit whatsoever to a politician's desire for more tax money to spend.

First let's consider our lovely Southern Belle producer Belinda. Belinda and her husband recently purchased a tract of land behind her new home. That tract of land contains one rather small and old house plus some empty acreage. Belinda will rent the home for just enough to cover her debt service and property taxes on the new purchase ... maybe. Now, here comes a developer. He wants Belinda's land because he can build at least three, maybe four new homes on that property. Belinda says no. She likes not having houses abutting her back yard and appreciates the investment value of the land she has purchased. So .. the developer wanders off to the Capitol to talk to some politicians. He tells them that he can increase the property being paid on that tract of land tenfold if he could just get in there and build some houses, but the owners just won't sell the property to him. Under this Supreme court ruling the city can just seize the property from Belinda and hand it over to the developer to build those homes. Belinda has no way to stop this action. The city will have to play Belinda "just compensation," but that compensation will never match what Belinda might have earned by selling the property herself. Besides ... she didn't want to sell in the first place. It was her property, and she wanted to keep it. Now it can be taken ... just like that.

Another example. This time we'll use me. About two years ago I brought a building lot in the Northeast Georgia mountains. It's a lot in a mountain resort community. Before I bought the lot I made sure that there were no covenants or regulations that would require me to build a home on that lot before I was ready to do so. At present it is not my intention to build a home. I bought the lot as an investment. Now, since there is no home as of yet the property taxes are rather low. Along comes a developer. He wants to build a home on my lot. I tell him the lot is not for sale. He waltzes off to the local county commission to complain. He wants to build a house, I won't sell him the land. If he could build the house the property taxes would jump on that parcel of land. The county commission then sends me a letter telling me that if I don't sell my land to that developer to build that home they are going to seize the land and turn it over. Thanks to the Supreme Court, I'm screwed.

Now take the situation in New London. This is the case the court was considering. The targeted neighborhood is populated by middle class residents. The homes are old, but very well kept. One couple now slated to have their property seized is in their 80's. They celebrated their wedding in that home. They raised their children in that home. They held their 50th wedding anniversary party in that home. Now they're going to lose that home because a developer wants the property to build a hotel, some office buildings and a work out center. This is America. This shouldn't happen in America. That couple shouldn't be kicked out of their home just because a new development would pay more in property taxes.

There are also small businesses located on this tract of land. They're history. The big boys are in town, and the big boys can use eminent domain to get your property.

No society ostensibly based on economic liberty can survive unless that society recognizes the right to property. The right to property has been all but crippled by this decision from the Supreme Court. That right is now subject to the whims of politicians and developers.

I'm not through ranting. Read on.

Considering this ruling, how likely are you to invest in real estate at this point? If you saw a tract of land that was placed squarely in the path of growth, would you buy that property in hoes that you could later sell it for a substantial profit? I wouldn't. I wouldn't be interesting in investing in that property because I know that when it came time to sell the potential purchaser would lowball me on the price. I would never get a true market value based on the highest and best use of that property. And why not? Because the developer wanting that property would simply tell me that if I didn't' accept his lowball offer he would just go to the local government and start the eminent domain process. This ruling also means that virtually every piece of raw land out there has decreased in value. The threat of eminent domain for private economic development has severely damaged in most cases, and destroyed in many others, the American dream of investing in real estate.

Another element of the New London case. These middle class homes and small businesses were located on a waterfront. Everybody knows that middle class people and small businesses have no right to live on prime waterfront property. This property should be reserved for expensive homes and for big businesses with powerful political connections .. businesses like Pfizer Pharmaceutical company. Pfizer will be one of the beneficiaries of the New London seizures. This hideous Supreme Court ruling is going to result in a disgusting orgy of wealthy developers and politically powerful business interests using their political connections to ride roughshod over the property rights of poor and middle class property owners. I doubt seriously that you'll ever hear of some politician invoking eminent domain to seize property from a wealthy individual or business to make way for a low income housing project.

There's another element I want to add to this rant. I believe this Supreme Court decision to be a victory for the dark side in the war against individualism. Sadly, sometimes I think that I'm the only one out there who realizes that this war is being fought ... the only one on the side of individuality, that is. How in the world can leftist icon Ted Kennedy make say that "we are engaged in a war against individuality" without at least a few people in the media asking him what in the world he's talking about?

The concept of individuality is a very troublesome one for liberals. Recognizing the concept of the individual brings with it a whole lot of baggage that liberals don't want to carry around. When you acknowledge the existence of the individual you then have to recognize that the individual has rights. Among those rights would be the right to property. Liberals aren't friendly with the idea of property rights. They're fond of chanting such absurdities as "human rights, not property rights." Well, truthfully speaking; property has no rights. People have the right to property .. and those rights have been severely damaged.

Now ... is there a bright side? Is there anything good in the ruling? Yes, there is, and this is where you come in. Even though the Supremes approved these government confiscations of private property, the five justices who voted with the majority did say that they didn't like it. They encouraged local jurisdictions to pass laws severely restricting these seizures. There are eight states in the nation where the use of eminent domain for private development is all but prohibited by law. Those states are Washington, Montana, Illinois, Kentucky, Arkansas, Maine, South Carolina and Florida. If your state is not on this list, it's time for a little political activism. Start the movement now. Let your legislators know that you want your private property rights restored, and that your decisions on election day will be governed by their willingness to act to preserve your rights.

The Supreme Court decision is a horrible blow to private property rights. Whether or not it is a death-blow will be up to you.

Ellie

[rproctor922]

"Many Americans are perplexed that it was the liberals on the U.S. Supreme Court, and not the conservatives, who voted 5-4 to affirm Kelo v. City of New London. The decision allows local governments to seize homes and businesses and hand them over to private developers."


that is the biggest load of bull

[thedrifter]

Property rights, civil rights and Supreme Court nominations
June 24th, 2005
Clarice Feldman


One week before the end of its term, the Supreme Court has handed down a decision, Kelo v. City of New London, which greatly weakened the protection of property rights explicitly recognized in the Constitution. At issue is the power of governments to confiscate homes and other real estate, and set a price deemed “fair” – all without the owner’s consent. With one or more vacancies on the Court looming, and with the prospect of bitter confirmation battles looming, the public may start thinking about property rights as part of our civil rights, and alter the terms of the debate over the "judicial mainstream."

On April 20,2000, Judge Janice Rogers Brown addressed the Federalist Society. As we consider yesterday's decision, it's worth our time to consider her thesis on that occasion:

"[T]he sheer tenacity of the collectivist impulse--whether you call it socialism or communism or altruism--has changed not only the meaning of our words, but the meanings of the Constitution and the character of our people."

She noted further, in this notable speech:

"Protection of property was a major casualty of the Revolution of 1937...The court drew a line between personal rights and property rights or economic interests, and applied two different constitutional tests. Rights were reordered and property acquired a second class status. If the right asserted was economic, the court held the Legislature could do anything it pleased. Judicial review for alleged constitutional infirmities under the due process clause was virtually nonexistent. On the other hand, if the right was personal and 'fundamental' review was intolerably strict."

In this world of post-1937 law, words have lost their meaning. Brown signaled this by quoting in her introductory remarks these words from the Procol Harum song "A Whiter Shade of Pale":

"If music be the food of love
then laughter is its queen
and likewise if behind is in front
then dirt in truth is clean...."

No clearer example of the changing of the clear words of the law can be found than you'll find in yesterday's decision in Kelo.

The Supreme Court ignored the clear words of the Constitution which states in the Fifth Amendment:

"nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

But we are talking about an economic right. So "behind is in front" and voila "public use" as if by magic, has been transformed into "public purpose." Once, taking was permitted only if the state had an important need for the property, such as a road or bridge which everyone needed, and the property owner was justly compensated. Today, your property can be taken if the local authorities determine there is a more economic use to be made of your property by somebody else – a developer, an employer, or a tax-generating company - and they need the extra tax money they will receive if somebody else gets your house. This enlargement of the state’s power encourages not only fiscal profligacy but theft as well.

Theft? Didn't the Court say you should get "just compensation"? Think about it. Once the property is seized and given to another private party, you have no recourse if (a) the project is never undertaken or (b) the government miscalculated and the new use is not more economically valuable to the community. In fact, once property is transferred, in the absence of fraud or bad faith, there is no easy way apparent to get your property back, even if the new owner changes his mind, goes broke, or gets a better offer.

And what about the "just compensation" requirement? UCLA Law Professor Stephen Bainbridge explains why fair market value in Kelo "is a justly inadequate safeguard on government power".

"First, it fails to take into account the subjective valuations placed on the property by people whose families have lived on the land, in at least one case, for over a 100 years. In other words... the government will be able to seize land at a price considerably below the reservation price of the owners. Second, unlike the prototypical eminent domain case, in which the land is seized to build, say, a school or road, in this case the city is using eminent domain to seize property that will then be turned over to a private developer. If this new development increases the value of the property, all of that value will be captured by the new owner, rather than the forced sellers. As a result , the city will have made itself richer (through higher taxes) , and the developer richer, while leaving the forced sellers poorer in both subjective and objective senses."

Justice O'Connor observed that the poor will bear the burden of this decision.

"The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

Lawyers familiar with property law matters know that Kelo merely a progression on the already-stretched boundaries of "public use." Our property rights have been second class civil rights for a long time. But the public which is less attentive seems genuinely shocked by reports of this case. (I invite you to cruise the web for left and right sites to see this.)

Even federalists, who normally believe that decisions on public welfare should be left to elected officials and not revisited anew by judges, should be leery of that standard here. For once we substitute "public purpose" for "public use," not reviewing the merits of the Kelo decision and the way it was reached will invite the complete vitiationof the Fifth Amendment's prohibition on the taking of private property.

Yes, the poor will be disproportionately affected, as O'Connor noted. But think of the other valuable community institutions which may be seized as well: houses of worship, schools, charitable institutions, even people who choose to eschew McMansions in areas of high land values.

Defenders of the case will argue that Kelo was a special case where there was extended public debate and fact finding before the community sought the taking, suggesting the Court will continue to demand this careful review to assure fairness in the taking.

I do not share their sanguine view of either local government or the punctiliousness of the courts in resolving property issues between small property owners on one hand and developers linked with municipalities on the other. In fact, were I writing the script for The Sopranos, the next episodes would have Tony buying up choice New Jersey homes with the assistance of local aldermen and the New Jersey Supreme Court. That particular body, readers may remember, found itself able to ignore the clear words of New Jersey law to allow Frank Lautenburg to substitute on the ballot for Robert Torricelli after the statutorily defined time for such substitutions had clearly expired. Tony could become a billionaire.

But the Court does leave open some recourse from this decision: the possibility of state legislation to forbid property being taken for "public purpose." Every reader who lives in a state which does not enjoy such protection should work for such a clear repudiation of the practice of forced taking of property for use by private interests.

In the meantime, it is anticipated that on Monday one of the Supreme Court judges will announce his/her resignation at the end of the term, and the battle for a confirmation of replacement will begin.

The Senate Democrats who held up the confirmation of Judge Brown to the US. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia for two years, upon the opposition of leftwing groups like People for the American Way ( Norman Lear) who called her a "loose cannon" who "lacked the appropriate commitment to fundamental constitutional rights principles,” have offered the President a fool's deal. They want him to consult with them before nominating anyone. (Something about that offer reminds me of an email I got saying I'd won a foreign lottery and to claim it should prepay the vendor's ten percent which, of course, would be rebated upon receipt of the award, though I should keep the whole thing quiet to avoid confusion with other people claiming the same prize.)

My guess is that Justice Thomas, whose dissent most clearly challenges the majority opinion, and Judge Brown, whose views suggest she'd have joined him had she been on the Court, may fairly be regarded as champions of a view of property rights deeply cherished by Americans. The notion that a man’s home is his castle, is deeply ingrained in the American psyche, as is the American dream of home ownership. They are mainstream in a way that makes intuitive sense to Main Street.

Let the debate about the juidicial mainstream begin. The detractors of Judge Brown and Justice Thomas - the volunteer "consultants" on the Presidential nominations - are in the lyrics of Harum which drew Judge Brown's attention , "skipp[ing] the light fandango."


Ellie

[thedrifter]

Supreme Court: A decision too far
June 24th, 2005
Dennis Sevakis



Yesterday’s five to four Kelo decision by the Supreme Court, upholding the taking by the state of the private property of one for the private use of another, smacks of irony both dramatic and tragic.

One of the definitions given by Merriam-Webster for “irony” is an

“incongruity between a situation developed in a drama and the accompanying words or actions that is understood by the audience but not by the characters in the play -- called also dramatic irony, tragic irony”

And for Justice Breyer, one of the majority in this decision, today must be doubly ironic. For yesterday, the AP reported that:

Rights groups showed a smuggled video Thursday of hundreds of thousands of poor Zimbabweans living in the open in the winter cold after the government tore down their homes in what it describes as an urban renewal project.

At news conferences in Africa and at the United Nations, more than 200 international human rights and civic groups said the campaign, known as Operation Drive Out Trash, was "a grave violation of international human rights law and a disturbing affront to human dignity."

Lest you think me unkind or unhinged, I’m often unsure which is worse, let me remind you that Justice Breyer has stated that the foreign courts, explicitly including those of Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, should serve as models for ours to emulate. For:

In a 1999 death penalty case, Breyer, citing judicial decisions from Jamaica, India, Zimbabwe, and the European Court of Human Rights said, “A growing number of courts outside the United States … have held that lengthy delay in administering a lawful death penalty renders ultimate execution inhuman, degrading, or unusually cruel.”

Apparently he may also consider the Zimbabwean view of property rights ripe for emulation. This I find somewhat astonishing, whether or not Justice Breyer consciously or unconsciously included thought of the Zimbabwean theory of takings in his deliberations. For according to the Freedom House report on the “Worst of the Worst” violators of human rights:

Significantly, six of the eighteen most repressive governments--those of China, Cuba, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Zimbabwe--are members of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), representing nearly 11 percent of the 53-member body.

According to Senator Durbin and some of his fellow members of that august body, we should be included on that list. This, perhaps, is Justice Breyer’s reason for including Zimbabwe as one of his judicial references.

On the other hand – there always is one, isn’t there? – Sandra Day O’Connor must be feeling a tad sheepish. For, as reported by the New York Times, she was on this occasion of an opinion differing from that of Justice Breyer:

In a bitter dissent, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the majority had created an ominous precedent. "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property," she wrote. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

Which is interesting, for she has previously thrown in with Breyer regarding the usefulness – nay, necessity – of bringing the thoughts and decisions of foreign courts and law to bolster our sagging and inadequate Constitution. For in October of 2003 in a speech given in Atlanta,

. . .Justice Sandra Day O’Connor added fuel to the controversy over foreign precedents, predicting that “over time we will rely increasingly, or take notice at least increasingly, of international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues.”

"The impressions we create in this world are important and they can leave their mark," O'Connor said in remarks quoted in the Atlanta Constitution. Looking to foreign precedents "may not only enrich our own country's decisions, I think it may create that all-important good impression."

Yes, we must certainly concern ourselves with that “all-important good impression.” Unfortunately, her concern is regarding the opinion of those living and breathing in countries other than her own. A country whose Constitution she has solemnly sworn – or affirmed – to uphold. I find it less than comforting that she now finds it in her heart to have some concern for all those homes, Motel 6s, and family farms soon to be replaced by the speculative wishes of foreign and domestic gargantua.

The liberals and leftists on the Court may have just slit their own wrists along with those of the politicians who fastidiously protect judicial activism and eschew Constitutional originalism. Americans are justifiably proud and jealous of their property rights. Giving corporations a proxy power to run roughshod over those rights may be a tipping point in the public’s perception of the Court as a defender of the individual against the power of the state.

For this may be a decision too far.

[Fox 2/23]

property is only rented from .gov anyway in the form of your yearly property tax. the black robes simply amended the circumstances in which The State can terminate your lease...

[Phantom Blooper]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The right to bear arms is just about gone,the right to have property is going. The right to life is down the tubes. How about the pursuit of happiness?I make myself happy....no problem.The civil liberties will be shot when you have to show your papers to cross a state border.

I am proud to be American,I am proud to have served my country. I believe shortly I will have to go underground and I will be living in a communist country which my forefathers fought against! The rights are slowly being taken away.


Semper-Fi! "Never Forget" Chuck Hall:

[thedrifter]

Housing Envy

June 23, 2005



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Tom Purcell

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I envy my friends in Washington, D.C.

Four years ago, one of them paid $165,000 for a half duplex near Old Town, Alexandria. She encouraged me to buy a place just like hers right down the street, but I hesitated. I wasn’t sure if I was going to stay in the area. I thought the price was a little high.

But what do I know about anything.

I had no idea that just a few years later, interest rates would rocket downward. I had no idea the federal reserve would pump an unimaginable amount of dough into the economy, or that aggressive mortgage firms would use interest-only gimmicks and other tricks to qualify anyone for a massive loan.

That duplex that I could have bought for $165,000 is now selling for $465,000, and I’m out a cool $300,000 for not buying when I could have.

That’s why I read with great interest a recent article in the Washington Post. Housing envy has become the newest psychological phenomenon to strike America’s high-growth metro areas.

You see, there are people working side by side, making the same income, but the one who bought a home four years ago is worth, on paper anyhow, $300,000 more than the one still renting. And the one still renting now has to pay a king’s ransom to buy the same house.

I often fall into daydreams about what I would have done with all that dough. I could have sold the Old Town duplex and paid cash for a six-unit apartment building in the Pittsburgh suburb where I now live.

I could have moved into one of the units and rented out the others. After all my costs -- taxes, insurance, etc. -- I would have had a positive cash flow of $2,000 a month or more. I could have retired my corporate clients for a year or two, and spent all my time completing the books I’ve been struggling to write.

But all has been lost.

Because I missed the housing boom in Washington, I am forced to attain wealth the old-fashioned way. I have to earn it.

Scared off by the insanity of the Washington real estate market, I fled back to Pittsburgh. With job growth and population growth flat, there isn’t much of a boom in Pittsburgh. Property is very affordable.

I bought a modest property, my second, because it will make a nice rental. I’ll live there a spell, then rent it and buy another. Gradually, slowly, painfully, I’ll grow a nice little nest egg for my retirement years.

And as I struggle to build wealth, I am filled with envy -- envy for those who made boatloads of dough by doing absolutely nothing except buying homes in high-growth metro areas before the insanity kicked into high gear.

The envious part of me would delight in seeing their bubbles burst. It happened before in Washington. In the mid-1980’s, the last time the market soared there, people got caught up in the frenzy and speculators snapped up condos as investments.

In 1999, while looking for a place to rent, I met an older fellow who had bought five condos in the mid-1980’s. He had paid $115,000 each for his condos then expecting their values to soar over the next decade. But they didn’t soar.

When we talked in 1999, he told me the units he paid $115,000 for were worth $90,000. After years of managing his five properties, his investments produced a negative debt of more than $100,000.

Of course, he told me his story a little over five years ago before the current boom kicked into high gear. Right now those same condos are probably selling for $250,000 or more. After being flat for years, their “value” has doubled in the past two years.

His story makes me wonder if today’s buyers will experience a similar fate when interest rates go up, money availability tightens and the loan gimmicks disappear.

Who knows, maybe the day will come when such folks envy fellows like me.

Ellie

[Phantom Blooper]

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.

# # #

Logan Darrow Clements
Freestar Media, LLC

Phone 310-593-4843
logan@freestarmedia.com
http://www.freestarmedia.com