Losing Lost Liberty

Kerry Howley | February 6, 2006

Back in June, Logan Darrow Clements proposed that the town of Weare, New Hampshire use its power of eminent domain to seize eight prime acres -- now wasting space as Justice David Souter's residence -- and build a shiny, tax revenue-generating new hotel dubbed "Lost Liberty." He and others gathered signatures and petitioned to put the proposal on the town's March ballot. This weekend, Weare residents balked. While the opposition claimed to be taking the two-wrongs-don't-make-a-right moral highground, it appears they basically added a "Not!" to the end of the initial proposal:

"This is a game," said Walter Bohlin, who proposed adding the word "not" throughout the proposal to take Souter's eight acres, including his more than 200-year-old farmhouse. "It was a piece of property targeted for revenge."

By secret ballot, residents voted 94 to 59 in favor of Bohlin's addition.

Via Club for Growth.

Comments

|2.6.06 @ 11:46AM|#

Pussies.

|2.6.06 @ 11:49AM|#

""It was a piece of property targeted for revenge."

Better 'revenge' than outright theft.

|2.6.06 @ 11:58AM|#

Someone should find out where the NYTimes editors live and put a ballot initiative with their property on the ballot to turn it into a retirement home for millionaires. It would improve the tax base since no sensible person retires in NY. See how they like eminent domain now.

alkali|2.6.06 @ 12:09PM|#

Why won't those Weare residents wake up and realize that democratic checks on use of the eminent domain power just aren't sufficient?

|2.6.06 @ 12:15PM|#

"By secret ballot, residents voted 94 to 59 in favor of Bohlin�s addition [adding the word "not"]. Later, by a voice vote, they approved substituting a request that town officials not seize Souter�s home by eminent domain; and urging Gov. John Lynch and the Legislature take action to make sure property can�t be taken through eminent domain and handed over to private developers for economic development purposes."

That sounds like a positive development, even if they didn't vote pertonal retaliation against Justice Souter. Souter's hometown has officially sent a message that it doesn't like the kind of taking involved in the *Kelo* decision.

Stephen Macklin|2.6.06 @ 12:16PM|#

Clements ought to go back to Weare with the same proposal on a different parcel of land. Maybe propose taking over a chunk of the town center. Maybe then they will get the point.

|2.6.06 @ 12:26PM|#

What Bonar said. It's not as if the Lost Liberty Hotel was a serious proposal anyway. It seems to me they had their fun and are now just driving home their actual request: Do something about ED abuse.

The Wine Commonsewer|2.6.06 @ 12:33PM|#

I told you that this would never happen.

O'Conner said it well when she noted that the politically well-connected will have property rights and the rest of us won't. Okay, so that's a paraphrase, but that's what she said.

And there ain't nobody too much more politically well-connected than Souter.

|2.6.06 @ 12:49PM|#

I'd think the Club for Growth assholes would be behind eminent domain. Those cocksuckers are pro-business, which is totally different than being pro-freedom. Just ask Uncle Milton and his saggy sack.

Jim Anderson|2.6.06 @ 1:42PM|#

Buffoons. Have they no regard for Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised? Thou shalt not amend by adding "not."

|2.7.06 @ 11:35AM|#

I like what the guy being interviewed last night called it. Home schooling. Its not revenge its just forcing everyone to play by the rules. Now if you just so happened to make the rules and now you don't want to play anymore oh fucking well. Dems da rules! Rules for all U.S. citizens as declared by Souter himself. Now Souter is a citizen just as the rest of us are so his rule encompasses him as well as the rest of us.

While I would love to see that SOB have to move I think this whole action is ment to get state politicians off their ass's to make strong state law protecting land/property owners. Of course even if the state passes a law by a vote of the people if it doesn't fit with the Feds idea I am sure they will invoke the Interstate Commerce Clause and nullify the voice of the people in those states. After all states don't give campaign contributions like Phizer etc etc.

Just ask the Med Marijuana People about states rights.

Those politicians who act by doing nothing should be brought to test by having the law they failed to change used against them. Call it what you will, if it results in stopping state and federally endorsed theft of its citizens I am all for it. Got to crack a few eggs now and then, why not theirs for once.

|2.7.06 @ 3:11PM|#

Dar

After all states don't give campaign contributions like Phizer etc

I didn't hear about that, whose property did Pfizer take?