The controversial decision of the Supreme Court on June 23rd regarding the issue of eminent domain in the case The Kelo v. City of New London has sparked some interesting conversations, and now some rather humorous actions on the part of angry citizens. The 5-4 ruling went against homeowners in favor of a business wishing to construct an office complex. Supreme Court Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, Kennedy and Breyer were the majority in this ruling, while Supreme Court Justices O’Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas were the dissenting minority.
Supreme Court Justice John Stevens wrote for the majority:
“The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including — but by no means limited to — new jobs and increased tax revenue.”
The decision made last Thursday allows local governments to seize a home or business against the owner’s will for the purpose of private development. Interestingly enough, this decision seems to be one that strikes a chord among most people across party lines as dangerous, if not outright wrong. I’ve heard decent arguments on both sides of the issue, but my sympathies tend to fall on the side of the homeowners. In a humorous turn of events, Logan Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC has contacted the local government of Supreme Court Justice David Souter’s hometown in New Hampshire, attempting to get the property seized so that Clement’s organization can construct a new hotel.
According to Clement;
“Although this property is owned by an individual, David H. Souter, a recent Supreme Court decision, Kelo v. 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.”
I laughed and laughed. Honestly, I couldn’t help it. While I’m fairly convinced that no sane government would allow an act that is pretty deliberately malicious and spiteful to pass, if nothing else, it’s a clever shenanigan worth at least a few nod’s of humorous appreciation. In an interview with World.net Daily, Clements elaborates on his position:
“This is not a prank” said Clements. “The town 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.” […]
The activist says he is aware of the apparent conflict of someone who is strongly opposed to the Kelo decision using it to purposely oust an American from his property.
“I realize there is a contradiction, but we’re only going to use it against people who advocated” the Kelo decision, Clements told WND. “Therefore, it’s a case of retaliation, not initiation.”
Certainly he is lying when he says “This is not a prank.”
I think the prank highlights the limits to the Court’s Kelo ruling. Kelo involved a large plan for about ninety separately owned plots of land, the area in Kelo is economically depressed, and the opinion and concurrence emphasized there was no improper motive.
The Prank would involve a single plot of land in an place that is not economically depressed, and the project would be pursued as a means to punish the owner, clearly an improper motive.
Sorry, it cannot happen, even in theory.
For once, I actually think that a bit of conservo-crazy political theater is funny.
Ya think, MrKmyr? And here I was under the impression…
All kidding aside though, I did mention that in the editorial:
During these times, you have to look for humor where you can get it, and if it comes from a conservative, hey that’s possible too.
ED was a very heated topic at the City Council meeting here last night. Lots of fireworks, but some humor though(substitute Souter’s home with council member of choice, lol)
You know what makes this not-so-funny?
Can you imagine that _any_ government _anywhere_ in the U.S. ‘taking’ using eminent domain a piece of land or house owned by _any_ wealthy/politicallypowerful/elite even if the reasons is _above appproach_ and truly needed,
and actually being successful? Or for that matter, even considering it?
Has it even happened?
Every case I’ve ever heard of has been against lower and middle class wage earners.
It won’t ever happen against Souter, ever.. even when its not a retalitory joke (which btw, I thought was funny).
Kim wrote: I’ve heard decent arguments on both sides of the issue, but my sympathies tend to fall on the side of the homeowners.
i was curious if you had any links to “decent arguments” on the side of legally mandated gentrification… err… i mean eminent domain? personally, i’m having trouble coming up with justifications (or even rationalizations) for the forcible eviction of people from their homes because some rich fatcat can make more money off their property.
Actually the arguments didn’t come from the web. They came from a few individuals. I’ll see if I can’t either get them to post those ideas themselves, or get a rundown and post them myself.
“Can you imagine that _any_ government _anywhere_ in the U.S. ‘taking’ using eminent domain a piece of land or house owned by _any_ wealthy/politicallypowerful/elite even if the reasons is _above appproach_ and truly needed,
and actually being successful? Or for that matter, even considering it?
Has it even happened?
Every case I’ve ever heard of has been against lower and middle class wage earners”
———————————
Of course….I think that was the point that was being made. It’s the impossibility of the whole thing, but the audacity of someone bringing it up that makes it funny and deplorable at the same time.
Lest you think that response is too light. ED is really no joke at all where I live, but you won’t make it in a long, hard battle without some levity and good spirits(including the drinking kind)
This is very amusing. I hope Souter gets it.
That’s KARMA, Your Honor.
*Smirk.*
As far as I can tell, Clements is a libertarian, not a conservative.
I don’t find this act to be out-of-bounds at all. Sometimes those not involved in a decision and the effects of the decision afterwards don’t get a clear perspective of what they might be doing at the time.
I think this is true of pretty much all things. Until you experience something personally you really don’t have much of a expertise on the subject. This action by Clements is a great one in my opinion. For example if I owned a peice of property by inheirtance on the coast of California in a realtively wealthy area and some other private person wan’t to sieze my land to “upgrade” it and thereby produce more property taxes for the city, I wouldn’t want the city to have a vote on whether or not I should be forced to sell at a “fair market value”.
I think what this group is doing is very American and very necessary so of course I’m behind them all the way.