Thursday, June 30, 2005

Souter v Souter

On the back of yesterday's item on the Supreme Court's alteration of the meaning of "public use" and its expansion of the legitimate use of eminent domain, I thought you would be interested in the following letter, sent Monday to the town council in Weare, New Hampshire.

Mr. Chip Meany, Code Enforcement Officer
Town of Weare, New Hampshire
Fax 603-529-4554Dear

Mr. Meany,

I am proposing to build a hotel at 34 Cilley Hill Road in the Town of Weare. I would like to know the process your town has for allowing such a development.

Although this property is owned by an individual, David H. Souter, a recent Supreme Court decision, "Kelo vs. City of New London" clears the way for this land to be taken by the Government of Weare through eminent domain and given to my LLC for the purposes of building a hotel. The justification for such an eminent domain action is that our hotel will better serve the public interest as it will bring in economic development and higher tax revenue to Weare.

As I understand it your town has five people serving on the Board of Selectmen. Therefore, since it will require only three people to vote in favor of the use of eminent domain I am quite confident that this hotel development is a viable project. I am currently seeking investors and hotel plans from an architect. Please let me know the proper steps to follow to proceed in accordance with the law in your town.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Logan Darrow Clements
Freestar Media, LLC

For those of you who may not know, the current owner of the land, David H. Souter, is a Justice of the US Supreme Court, and member of the majority which issued the New London decision allowing governments to seize private lands for projects such as this.

I for one look forward to visiting Weare and staying in the newly minted Lost Liberty Hotel.

(Thanks to Mark K. for tipping me off to this.)

4 Comments:

Blogger Richard John said...

Fantastic. If he had an internet site, I would donate a dollar. :-)

10:16 AM  
Anonymous Mark said...

Saw an interview with Clements yesterday. He clearly has an agenda of showing how out of touch those who voted with the majority were, but nevertheless he says this is a real project, not just a protest. He said he fully intends to go ahead with it if the town approves the project.

4:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This article shows gross ignorance of the process of eminent domain. For project like a hotel, the property must be in a redevelopment zone. Simply creating such a government entity would take years of work and a long political process. The primary test for the creation of a redevelopment zone is that the area must be "blighted". Wanting to build a better project is insufficient reason.

After 5 years of constant political hassling, Mister Clements' project would have to be chosen as the best project over all others wanting the site.

I suggest you learn what you are talking about before you give advise to "those of you who may not know". It is you who does not know...
Greg

1:42 PM  
Blogger Scott Callahan said...

Greg,

Not sure exactly what about this is "ignorant". The Supreme Court ruling was real, as was the effort by Mr. Clements to seize Souter's land. As for my giving "advice", again I'm not at all sure what you are talking about. I did not "advise" anyone. I merely passed on the fact that Mr. Clements was undertaking this effort.

SC

2:04 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home