This Land Was Your Land, But Now It's Their Land

That's how Walmart clears profitable small businesses out of new places.

If the government uses eminent domain to encourage economic growth, and the people don't like it, the people elect a new government.

Its sad that century old houses will be bull-dozed. Its also sad that more than 5% of the people in that state are unemployed. Pick your poison.

Here are the actual opinions of the Justices on this case. When I posted the news these weren't yet available online.

check this out:

<i>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.</i>

The House voted recently to use the spending power of Congress to undermine this ruling by denying federal money to any city or state project that used eminent domain to force people to sell their property to make way for a profit-making, (i.e., tax-producing) project.

Opponents of this action claim that it undermines the authority of the Supreme Court and their ruling, but I see it as an apt demonstration of the balance of power in the U.S. Government. The Supreme Court rules that the Constitution allows the government to take property for this ‘public purpose.’ That’s the end of it for the Supreme Court. Congress then steps in to say, essentially, “Sure, it’s allowed, go ahead. We’re just not going to give you a nickel if you do.” Well done.

I also support Congress in this action because I don’t agree that cities or states should actually use this power (whether or not the Constitution allows it) because it doesn’t justly compensate the land owners. If it did, then the land owners wouldn’t be refusing to sell in the first place. It’s just that simple.

Brandon had it right when he said that developers need to make their offers acceptable to the current owners of the land or move along to a different area. That is the nature of capitalism. If the cities have such a huge potential in tax-revenue from a particular piece of land, then they should contribute with the developer to buy it from the owner for the owner's price. The cities should invest in that potential appropriately through spending their tax dollars or selling municipal bonds, etc. As it is, cities condemning land for ‘just compensation,’ particularly as defined by most states as the current fair market value of the land, are not adequately compensating a land owner for the true potential value of his land or his/her connection to it. In fact, the fair market value expressly doesn’t consider these aspects of value to the owner.

So, while I don’t blame the Supreme Court for ruling the way it did on Kelo v New London, I appreciate our governmental system and how Congress is potentially checking that new eminent domain authority.