| Revision as of 18:31, 9 August 2005 editOtisTDog (talk | contribs)499 edits -- reverted per previous discussion← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:43, 9 August 2005 edit undoJudge Magney (talk | contribs)134 edits update restored, more commentary notedNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{NPOV}} | {{NPOV}} | ||
| 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 '''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: Local officials have 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 "still hasn’t asked us for the correct paperwork." In July, Clements announced an effort to add his proposal to the agenda of the Weare town meeting, but to date has been unable to procure the 25 signatures required. Many observers have viewed the proposal as no more than a ], and, amidst public backlash to the '']'' Supreme Court decision, the idea has achieved far more notoriety than the person who proposed it. | ||
| ==History== | ==History== | ||
| 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 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. | ||
| ⚫ | On Monday, ], ], ] faxed a request to Chip Meany, the Code Enforcement Officer of the Towne of ], even though Meany was not involved in eminent domain procedures. 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. | ||
| The decision generated significant controversy, as the definition of "depressed" was subjective; previous use of eminent domain had been restricted to situations in which a large public benefit was expected (e.g. installation of utility or transportation infrastructure) or in which the condemened property was deemed a public hazard or nuisance (e.g. renovation of "blighted" property). | |||
| ⚫ | On Monday, ], ], ] faxed a request to Chip Meany, the Code Enforcement Officer of the Towne of ] |
||
| 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. | 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. | ||
| ⚫ | 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. On August 8, 2005, 1,399 names appeared on the pledge list. | ||
| According to a press release issued on June 27, 2005: | |||
| <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> | |||
| ⚫ | 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. |
||
| 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. | 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. | ||
| Line 35: | Line 29: | ||
| ==Notable commentary== | ==Notable commentary== | ||
| Professor ] believes that the claim by Clements was frivolous given the intent of ''Kelo''. |
Professor ] believes that the claim by Clements was frivolous given the intent of ''Kelo''. Hoffman wrote: | ||
| ::his kind of retaliation against a Justice who merely wrote voted for a majority opinion (applying a century of solid precedent) through use of a frivolous land claim strikes at the heart of our government of ordered liberty. It is, I think, the same as if a mugger went to Justice Scalia on the street and asked for his wallet, on the ground that the Justice has, through his jurisprudence, eroded the protection against seizure on the thoroughfare. | |||
| 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. | |||
| 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." | 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." | ||
| Line 41: | Line 39: | ||
| 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." | 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." | ||
| Sterling Burnett, |
Sterling Burnett, an advocate for energy and firearms industries, 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." | ||
| The "Wizbang!" blog, which expressed initial sympathy for the proposal, now suspects it of being "a cheap PR ploy." | |||
| Air American commentator Rachel Maddow, appearing on Tucker Carlon's MSNBC "Situation" program, dismissed the proposal as a "creepy" publicity stunt. | |||
| Prof. Randy E. Barnett, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute concluded that the proposal was clearly forbidden by the ''Kelo'' ruling: | |||
| :Retaliating against a judge for the good faith exercise of his duty is not only a bad idea, it 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. | |||
| 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." | |||
| ==External Links== | ==External Links== | ||
Revision as of 20:43, 9 August 2005
 | The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
The Lost Liberty Hotel is a proposed hotel on the site where one of United States Supreme Court Justice David Souter's properties currently sits; the proposal is a reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in which Souter joined with the majority ruling in favor of expanding the scope of eminent domain. The hotel's construction appears unlikely: Local officials have 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 "still hasn’t asked us for the correct paperwork." In July, Clements announced an effort to add his proposal to the agenda of the Weare town meeting, but to date has been unable to procure the 25 signatures required. Many observers have viewed the proposal as no more than a publicity stunt, and, amidst public backlash to the Kelo v. New London Supreme Court decision, the idea has achieved far more notoriety than the person who proposed it.
History
Souter was in the five-Justice majority in Kelo v. New London, a 2005 decision in which the Court held that the United States Constitution 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.
On Monday, June 27, 2005, Logan Clements faxed a request to Chip Meany, the Code Enforcement Officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire, even though Meany was not involved in eminent domain procedures. 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 Kelo decision.
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 libertarians and hopes that members of prominent libertarian groups will be regular customers.
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. On August 8, 2005, 1,399 names appeared on the pledge list.
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.
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.
Clements said that the hotel would more likely resemble a bed and breakfast than a full-sized hotel.
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 father was a banker with the New Hampshire Savings Bank in Concord. He died in 1976, but Souter's mother 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 John Paul Stevens, which made clear that the Court's decision did not go so far as to legitimize takings such as the one Clements proposed:
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.
Despite this explicit language, the Clements press release declares that the Court has already decided this issue.
Notable commentary
Professor David Hoffman believes that the claim by Clements was frivolous given the intent of Kelo. Hoffman wrote:
- his kind of retaliation against a Justice who merely wrote voted for a majority opinion (applying a century of solid precedent) through use of a frivolous land claim strikes at the heart of our government of ordered liberty. It is, I think, the same as if a mugger went to Justice Scalia on the street and asked for his wallet, on the ground that the Justice has, through his jurisprudence, eroded the protection against seizure on the thoroughfare.
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.
Professor Eugene Volokh responded to Clements on his own blog, categorizing Clements' actions are 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, sees 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, an advocate for energy and firearms industries, 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."
The "Wizbang!" blog, which expressed initial sympathy for the proposal, now suspects it of being "a cheap PR ploy."
Air American commentator Rachel Maddow, appearing on Tucker Carlon's MSNBC "Situation" program, dismissed the proposal as a "creepy" publicity stunt.
Prof. Randy E. Barnett, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute concluded that the proposal was clearly forbidden by the Kelo ruling:
- Retaliating against a judge for the good faith exercise of his duty is not only a bad idea, it 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.
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."