Misplaced Pages

Lost Liberty Hotel: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 13:27, 9 August 2005 editJudge Magney (talk | contribs)134 edits →Notable commentary: clarify sequence of commentary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 03:29, 7 November 2024 edit undoOona Wikiwalker (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,517 editsm Coordinates inapplicable as this was never built.Tag: Visual edit 
(201 intermediate revisions by 91 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Hotel proposed as a political protest}}
⚫ {{NPOV}}


The '''Lost Liberty Hotel''' or '''Lost Liberty Inn''' was a proposed ] to be built on the site of ] ] ] ]'s properties in ]. The proposal was a reaction to the ] '']'' (2005) decision in which Souter joined the majority ruling that the ] allows the use of ] to condemn privately owned real property for use in private economic development projects.
The '''Lost Liberty Hotel''' is a proposed ] on the site where one of ] ] ] ] properties currently sits; the proposal is a reaction to the ] decision in which Souter joined with the majority ruling in favor of expanding the scope of ]. The hotel's construction appears unlikely: The local code enforcement officer reported that, as of July 16, 2005, the proposal's sponsor "hasn’t done anything" to advance the hotel plan with the town of Weare, and a published letter from the local Board of Selectman indicates they are unanimously opposed to supporting the seizure plan "in any fashion". Many observers have viewed the proposal as no more than a ], but, amidst public backlash to the '']'' Supreme Court decision, the idea has achieved far more notoriety than the person who proposed it.

On March 14, 2006, a ] favoring this project was defeated by almost a three-to-one margin. Two candidates who had supported the initiative were not elected to the town's ].
{{TOC left}}
<!-- Commented out: ] -->
⚫ {{clear}}


==History== ==History==
{{refimprove section|date=January 2015}}
Souter was in the five-Justice majority in '']'', a 2005 decision in which the Court held that the ] does not prohibit a local government from condemning private property in order to transfer the land to a commercial developer, so long as such use serves a demonstrated "public purpose," such as economic development of a "depressed" area. Souter voted with the five-Justice majority in '']'', a 2005 decision in which the Court held that the ] does not prohibit a local government from condemning private property in order to transfer the land to a commercial developer that promises to bring in more tax revenue than the original owner, so long as such use serves a subjectively-defined "public purpose," such as economic development of a "distressed" area. Justice ] wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices ], ], ] and ]. Justice ] wrote the principal dissent, joined by ] ], and Justices ] and ]. Justice Thomas also wrote a separate dissent.


On June 27, 2005, Logan Clements proposed that the Town of Weare use eminent domain to the land and farmhouse where Souter spent most of his youth, and where Souter still resided, for the purpose of constructing a hotel and restaurant on the property. Clements asserted that the Town of Weare would gain more tax revenue and economic benefits from the hotel and restaurant than it did from Souter's private residence. Clements said he would fund the hotel partly with investment capital from ], ], and other investors and hoped that members of prominent objectivist and libertarian groups would be regular customers.
On Monday, ], ], ] faxed a request to Chip Meany, the Code Enforcement Officer of the Towne of ] seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on the site of one of Souter's homes. Part of the process of building the hotel would be the seizure of that property under the eminent domain powers that Clements claims the Supreme Court declared permissible by the '']'' decision.


On June 29, 2005, Travis J. I. Corcoran created an online pledge form in which potential patrons would pledge to spend at least one week at the hotel if it was constructed.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.pledgebank.com/LostLibHotel|title='I will pay to spend 7 nights in a hotel built on property seized from David H. Souter' - PledgeBank|website=www.pledgebank.com}}</ref> Within eight days, more than 1,000 registered users had signed the pledge, and by the pledge deadline of August 29, 2005, a total of 1,418 people had signed. Clements and his staff maintained that they were serious about building the hotel if it gained enough public interest and financial support.
Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, argues that the City of Weare would gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road rather than a private residence. Clements said that he plans to partially fund the hotel using investment capital from wealthy ]s and hopes that members of prominent libertarian groups will be regular customers.


A local group, the Committee for the Protection of Natural Rights, proposed a measure which, if adopted by popular vote, would provide for Souter's house and land to be taken for the construction of an Inn. The measure would create two trusts to fund the hotel project, one to cover legal expenses and another to hold donations to provide "just compensation" for Souter's property. Clements announced an effort to add the proposal to the agenda of the Weare town meeting, and in late August, ] and ] reported he had managed to gain the 25 signatures required to place it on the ballot. Clements pursued financing and public relations efforts in support of the project.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotelplan.html|title=Status of the "Hotel Lost Liberty" project|author=Freestar Media, LLC|date=|work=freestarmedia.com}}</ref> Supporters of the initiative held a rally in Weare on January 21 and 22, 2006, attended by supporters from as far away as Washington State and Texas, and supported of hotel backer Joshua Solomon's candidacy for election to the Weare Board of Selectmen in March 2006.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.freestarmedia.com/|title=Freestar Media, LLC|website=www.freestarmedia.com}}</ref> Supporters also canvassed voters door-to-door in Weare and spread word of the ballot initiative. The effort received local, state, and national media attention.
According to a press release issued on June 27, 2005:


On February 4, 2006, voters who gathered for the meeting portion of the town's annual election process voted to change the article's wording. The new text simply called upon the state legislature to oppose the taking of private property for use by private development, as some argued the ''Kelo'' decision now allowed. The voice vote was unanimous, although some supporters of the hotel concept later said they were upset by the vote. Under New Hampshire's town election system, any town resident who attends this annual meeting may amend warrant articles, including ones submitted by petition. Clements later condemned this procedure as undemocratic.
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>


Weare voters passed this newly worded article as it appeared on the town ballot when they went to the polls on March 14, 2006. Two candidates for ] who supported the hotel and were founding members of the Committee for the Protection of Natural Rights were defeated for election.
As part of an effort to establish a quantifiable public benefit of the proposed hotel, on June 29, 2005, Travis J. I. Corcoran created an online pledge where potential hotel visitors can affirm they would stay there for at least one week. By 20:26 GMT on July 1, 2005, over 1,000 people had joined the pledge. On August 8, 2005, the total number of people pledging had climbed to 1,399.


⚫ ==Notable commentary==
Clements and his staff claim to be serious about building the hotel and insist they will build it given enough public interest and financial support. They are currently taking suggestions through their website for menu items at the hotel's Just Desserts Café, and they have announced a contest among talk show hosts to see which one can get their listeners to raise the most money toward building the hotel.
Professor ], a lawyer and senior fellow at the ] who opposed ''Kelo'', found the proposal amusing at first, facetiously calling the hotel an "excellent public purpose", but rejected the idea when he found out people were taking it seriously, stating: "Retaliating against a judge ... violates the holding of ''Kelo'' itself, for the ''intent'' would be to take from A to give to B, in this case to punish A."<ref></ref>


⚫ Professor ] categorized Clements' actions as political speech protected by the ]. However, he criticized the hotel proposal itself, on the grounds that "we shouldn't seriously want government agencies to retaliate against government officials by seizing their property."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_06_26-2005_07_02.shtml|title=The Volokh Conspiracy - -|website=volokh.com}}</ref>
Those who doubt Clements's seriousness can point to his failure to establish a discrete entity to hold funds raised for the project, his call on supporters to make unrestricted donations to his enterprises rather than contributions dedicated to the project, and his requests for such in-kind donations as a Lear Jet to enable him to travel conveniently between New Hampshire and his West Coast base of operations.


⚫ New Hampshire's Republican state representative from Weare, Neal Kurk, saw the hotel plans as "poetic justice", as he opposed '']'', but he hopes that "Justice Souter's property will be protected by the good sense of New Hampshire townspeople."<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=92151|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20051112170453/http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=92151|title=National News: Critic: Seize Souter's home: Calif. man wants hotel on justice's N.H. land|author=Jay Fitzgerald|date=June 30, 2005|archivedate=November 12, 2005|website=news.bostonherald.com|access-date=August 5, 2005|url-status=dead}}</ref>
Clements said that the hotel would more likely resemble a ] than a full-sized hotel.
⚫ Sterling Burnett, senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, stated that he thought approval of the proposal would be "sweet justice", saying: "It shows how the sanctity of peoples' homes now exists solely at the whim of local politicians."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/kelo-decision-motivates-plan-for-lost-liberty-hotel|title=Kelo Decision Motivates Plan for 'Lost Liberty Hotel'|author=James M. Taylor|date=August 1, 2005|website=The Heartland Institute}}</ref>

Editors of the ] said they "like" the proposal and that it would "be amusing to turn the tables on those who undermine the rights of citizens", but point out: "Based on our reading of the Supreme Court's majority opinion in the property-rights case, it takes more than a simple good idea to take someone's home away."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://missoulian.com/news/opinion/book-us-a-room-in-lost-liberty-hotel--/article_40052b20-6e34-576b-bb37-6d7bc8a20ce6.html|title=Book us a room in Lost Liberty Hotel |date=July 11, 2005|website=missoulian.com}}</ref>
==The Farmhouse==
Clements's press release said that the Lost Liberty Hotel would replace the farmhouse where Souter spent most of his youth. In fact, Souter moved there when he was 11 years old along with his family after his grandparents had passed away. Souter's ] was a ] with the ] Savings ] in ]. He died in 1976, but Souter's ] still lives near the farmhouse in a retirement home.

==Legal Criticism==
Critics of Clements's proposal hold that it is based on a misreading of the ''Kelo'' decision. Souter joined in the majority opinion, written by Justice ], which made clear that the Court's decision did not go so far as to legitimize takings such as the one Clements proposed:

<blockquote>It is further argued that without a bright-line rule nothing would stop a city from transferring citizen A's property to citizen B for the sole reason that citizen B will put the property to a more productive use and thus pay more taxes. Such a one-to-one transfer of property, executed outside the confines of an integrated development plan, is not presented in this case. . . . he hypothetical cases posited by petitioners can be confronted if and when they arise.</blockquote>

Despite this explicit language, the Clements press release declares that the Court has already decided this issue.

⚫ ==Notable commentary==
Professor ] believes that the claim by Clements was frivolous given the intent of ''Kelo''. He also considered the possibility that Clements acted illegally under federal or state law if his actions amount to threatening a judge, though he concluded that criminal prosecution was unlikely.


] commentator ], appearing on ]'s ] "Situation" program, dismissed the proposal as a "creepy" publicity stunt.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna8416954|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120205180805/http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8416954/|title='The Situation with Tucker Carlson' – The Ed Show |date=June 29, 2005|archive-date=5 February 2012|work=msnbc.com|url-status=live|access-date=11 November 2019}}</ref>
⚫ Professor ] responded to Clements on his own blog, categorizing Clements' actions are political speech protected by the ]. However, he criticized the hotel proposal itself, on the grounds that "we shouldn't seriously want government agencies to retaliate against government officials by seizing their property."
One Weare area newspaper praised the Board of Selectmen for its handling of the Clements proposal, noting that it was "impossible for them to act on it because it had not gone through proper channels."<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.newhampshire.com/e-tearsheets/pdfs/07-07/a9news7-7.pdf|title=NewHampshire.com<!-- Bot generated title -->}}</ref>


==See also==
⚫ New Hampshire's Republican state representative from Weare, Neal Kurk, sees the hotel plans as "poetic justice," as he opposed '']'', but he hopes that "Justice Souter's property will be protected by the good sense of New Hampshire townspeople."
* ]


==References==
⚫ Sterling Burnett, senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, stated that he thought approval of the proposal would be "sweet justice", saying: "It shows how the sanctity of peoples' homes now exists solely at the whim of local politicians."
{{Reflist}}


Editors of the Missoulian say they "like" the proposal, noting: "The hotel would without doubt generate more jobs and taxes than Souter's home."


==External Links==
*


] ]
] ]
] ]
]
]

Latest revision as of 03:29, 7 November 2024

Hotel proposed as a political protest

The Lost Liberty Hotel or Lost Liberty Inn was a proposed hotel to be built on the site of United States Supreme Court Associate Justice David Souter's properties in Weare, New Hampshire. The proposal was a reaction to the Supreme Court’s Kelo v. New London (2005) decision in which Souter joined the majority ruling that the U.S. Constitution allows the use of eminent domain to condemn privately owned real property for use in private economic development projects.

On March 14, 2006, a ballot initiative favoring this project was defeated by almost a three-to-one margin. Two candidates who had supported the initiative were not elected to the town's Board of Selectmen.

History

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Souter voted with the five-Justice majority in Kelo v. New London, a 2005 decision in which the Court held that the Constitution does not prohibit a local government from condemning private property in order to transfer the land to a commercial developer that promises to bring in more tax revenue than the original owner, so long as such use serves a subjectively-defined "public purpose," such as economic development of a "distressed" area. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the principal dissent, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Justice Thomas also wrote a separate dissent.

On June 27, 2005, Logan Clements proposed that the Town of Weare use eminent domain to the land and farmhouse where Souter spent most of his youth, and where Souter still resided, for the purpose of constructing a hotel and restaurant on the property. Clements asserted that the Town of Weare would gain more tax revenue and economic benefits from the hotel and restaurant than it did from Souter's private residence. Clements said he would fund the hotel partly with investment capital from objectivists, libertarians, and other investors and hoped that members of prominent objectivist and libertarian groups would be regular customers.

On June 29, 2005, Travis J. I. Corcoran created an online pledge form in which potential patrons would pledge to spend at least one week at the hotel if it was constructed. Within eight days, more than 1,000 registered users had signed the pledge, and by the pledge deadline of August 29, 2005, a total of 1,418 people had signed. Clements and his staff maintained that they were serious about building the hotel if it gained enough public interest and financial support.

A local group, the Committee for the Protection of Natural Rights, proposed a measure which, if adopted by popular vote, would provide for Souter's house and land to be taken for the construction of an Inn. The measure would create two trusts to fund the hotel project, one to cover legal expenses and another to hold donations to provide "just compensation" for Souter's property. Clements announced an effort to add the proposal to the agenda of the Weare town meeting, and in late August, NPR and ABC reported he had managed to gain the 25 signatures required to place it on the ballot. Clements pursued financing and public relations efforts in support of the project. Supporters of the initiative held a rally in Weare on January 21 and 22, 2006, attended by supporters from as far away as Washington State and Texas, and supported of hotel backer Joshua Solomon's candidacy for election to the Weare Board of Selectmen in March 2006. Supporters also canvassed voters door-to-door in Weare and spread word of the ballot initiative. The effort received local, state, and national media attention.

On February 4, 2006, voters who gathered for the meeting portion of the town's annual election process voted to change the article's wording. The new text simply called upon the state legislature to oppose the taking of private property for use by private development, as some argued the Kelo decision now allowed. The voice vote was unanimous, although some supporters of the hotel concept later said they were upset by the vote. Under New Hampshire's town election system, any town resident who attends this annual meeting may amend warrant articles, including ones submitted by petition. Clements later condemned this procedure as undemocratic.

Weare voters passed this newly worded article as it appeared on the town ballot when they went to the polls on March 14, 2006. Two candidates for selectman who supported the hotel and were founding members of the Committee for the Protection of Natural Rights were defeated for election.

Notable commentary

Professor Randy Barnett, a lawyer and senior fellow at the Cato Institute who opposed Kelo, found the proposal amusing at first, facetiously calling the hotel an "excellent public purpose", but rejected the idea when he found out people were taking it seriously, stating: "Retaliating against a judge ... violates the holding of Kelo itself, for the intent would be to take from A to give to B, in this case to punish A."

Professor Eugene Volokh categorized Clements' actions as political speech protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, he criticized the hotel proposal itself, on the grounds that "we shouldn't seriously want government agencies to retaliate against government officials by seizing their property."

New Hampshire's Republican state representative from Weare, Neal Kurk, saw the hotel plans as "poetic justice", as he opposed Kelo, but he hopes that "Justice Souter's property will be protected by the good sense of New Hampshire townspeople." Sterling Burnett, senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, stated that he thought approval of the proposal would be "sweet justice", saying: "It shows how the sanctity of peoples' homes now exists solely at the whim of local politicians." Editors of the Missoulian said they "like" the proposal and that it would "be amusing to turn the tables on those who undermine the rights of citizens", but point out: "Based on our reading of the Supreme Court's majority opinion in the property-rights case, it takes more than a simple good idea to take someone's home away."

Air America Radio commentator Rachel Maddow, appearing on Tucker Carlson's MSNBC "Situation" program, dismissed the proposal as a "creepy" publicity stunt. One Weare area newspaper praised the Board of Selectmen for its handling of the Clements proposal, noting that it was "impossible for them to act on it because it had not gone through proper channels."

See also

References

  1. "'I will pay to spend 7 nights in a hotel built on property seized from David H. Souter' - PledgeBank". www.pledgebank.com.
  2. Freestar Media, LLC. "Status of the "Hotel Lost Liberty" project". freestarmedia.com.
  3. "Freestar Media, LLC". www.freestarmedia.com.
  4. The Volokh Conspiracy
  5. "The Volokh Conspiracy - -". volokh.com.
  6. Jay Fitzgerald (June 30, 2005). "National News: Critic: Seize Souter's home: Calif. man wants hotel on justice's N.H. land". news.bostonherald.com. Archived from the original on November 12, 2005. Retrieved August 5, 2005.
  7. James M. Taylor (August 1, 2005). "Kelo Decision Motivates Plan for 'Lost Liberty Hotel'". The Heartland Institute.
  8. "Book us a room in Lost Liberty Hotel". missoulian.com. July 11, 2005.
  9. "'The Situation with Tucker Carlson' – The Ed Show". msnbc.com. June 29, 2005. Archived from the original on 5 February 2012. Retrieved 11 November 2019.
  10. "NewHampshire.com" (PDF).
Categories: