Private company wishes to build hotel on Justice Souter's land :)


PDA






Otherguy Overby
June 28, 2005, 05:57 PM
I sure hope this is true.

http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

Just deserts, eh?

If you enjoyed reading about "Private company wishes to build hotel on Justice Souter's land :)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Cesiumsponge
June 28, 2005, 06:00 PM
I was discussing this possibility just the other day: that I would hope one of them would get nailed by the own filth they passed onto the rest of us. Only, I wish one of them lost their primary residence, not just undeveloped land they owned. Maybe that'll teach them a lesson

Then again...nah. Not likely.

Standing Wolf
June 28, 2005, 06:31 PM
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."

Works for me!

ACORN
June 28, 2005, 06:49 PM
I hope it happens!
The SCOTUS has made an absolute mockery of individual property rights with this decision?

dasmi
June 28, 2005, 08:32 PM
http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html

Press Release

For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) 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.

# # #

Logan Darrow Clements
Freestar Media, LLC

Phone 310-593-4843
logan@freestarmedia.com
http://www.freestarmedia.com

Tag
June 28, 2005, 08:42 PM
poetic, but it is still wrong.

Bayou Boy
June 28, 2005, 08:44 PM
frickin fantastic! :neener:

Cesiumsponge
June 28, 2005, 09:42 PM
Duplicate thread: http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=144877

Though the one who started this thread was a bit less vague.

Dave Bean
June 28, 2005, 10:04 PM
Poetic Justice.

Dave Bean

hksw
June 28, 2005, 10:16 PM
Hopefully, the developer's plans go through. Until then I hold my, "He** yeah!"s.

P95Carry
June 28, 2005, 10:24 PM
Have merged these two threads.

If they took his land I'd celebrate! :evil: :)

beerslurpy
June 28, 2005, 10:34 PM
That is beyond awesome. What a bitter medicine that must be.

nico
June 28, 2005, 10:46 PM
It'd be great if it happened but it won't. Does anybody actually think any politician would vote in favor of this?

beerslurpy
June 28, 2005, 10:48 PM
The only hope is that the selectmen in his home town see this for what it is and go along to teach souter a lesson.

It probably wont happen though.

ravinraven
June 29, 2005, 06:32 AM
... I have called it un-American to make this sort of a land grab. But, the victim. Oh my. I also call the planned and plotted taking of life murder. But could I call it murder or courthouse cleansing in the cases of the DISHONORABLE five?

But I would fight against the ultimate solution for these bastids. I want them to live forever so they can view the damage they have unleashed as it unfolds around them and people realize who did it to them and pound forever on their vile heads.

rr

Michigander
June 29, 2005, 06:43 AM
Even if this plan is carried out (which I highly doubt), Souter will probably get 1.3 X more than the value of his property.

Or, even if he gets only the fair market value, it will probably be for a huge profit after he pays off his loan.

Then everyone who agrees with the court's decision will point to this case and say, "what, it happened to Souter and he didn't have a problem with it."

Bruce H
June 29, 2005, 08:45 AM
Well well, it seems that New Hampshire already has a law on the books prohibiting the taking of land for private use. Did the learned Justice Souter already know this when he voted?

RaggedClaws
June 29, 2005, 09:08 AM
poetic, but it is still wrong.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Kharn
June 29, 2005, 09:47 AM
I just hope the "just compensation" is less than the remaining value of his mortgage. Or at least less than fair market value. :neener:

Kharn

M109A6 Paladin
June 29, 2005, 10:06 AM
There shouldn't be a mortgage if it's already been in his family for a long time. :D

As far as the comment on the "land-grab"...well, we did that to the people who were already living on these lands before the white man arrived. :eek:

I've always wondered if some Gov't entity is going to come crashing through my door late at night for being in possession of stolen property (my land and house). :eek:

Leave it to the Gov't to force me to pay taxes on something they stole. :eek:

Everyone have a nice 4th! Ah, yes, the time to celebrate the fact that our founding fathers were traitors to their country because they didn't want to pay a tea tax...try that today and see where it'll get you. Celebrate responsibly!

Z_Infidel
June 29, 2005, 10:16 AM
Everyone have a nice 4th! Ah, yes, the time to celebrate the fact that our founding fathers were traitors to their country because they didn't want to pay a tea tax...

You honestly think that's all there was to it?

SLCDave
June 29, 2005, 10:41 AM
The letter they sent:

Monday, June 27, 2005

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


Dear 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

I hope it's more than just a home to him. I hope it's a piece of land that has been in the family for generations. I hope he was raised there, and saw any children he has take their first steps there. I hope it really means something to him. Then, maybe, he can feel the consequenses of his traitorous actions.

obiwan1
June 29, 2005, 11:39 AM
Poetic justice if it is true. :neener:

cpileri
June 29, 2005, 11:46 AM
Just food for thought on some points brought up above:
The accepted definition of murder is the willful taking of a life where that life does not merit its destruction, i.e. taking innocent life.
I the accepted sense, it also includes the willful taking of life where the killer does not know with reasonable certainty that the victim merits death.
that is, the Beltway Snipers may have killed a really bad bad badguy -but since they had no way to know that, it is still murder.

In days past, people killed over land and property (horses, etc) esp when those items were more closely tied to survival- steal an early 19th century rural farmers herd, and he may well have starved to death, making it a life or death affair and justifying deadly force against the thieving party.

Question is, does the same apply to the folks in new London? are they truly in danger of death or grave bodily harm? is it a case by case decision?
Now, history is clear what tends to happen to corrupt politicians. But the question put today is wether is it "murder" or "Courthouse cleaning", regarding the 'dishonorable five'. Is the city council who approves the ED-ing of your house just as guilty? The county assessor, same question? the police officer who comes to make sure you come along quietly to your new apartment?
This, everyone will have to decide for themselves- a difficult decision with grave importance!

(pause)

Also asked was if Souter knew ahead of time that his place was safe in NH. DOESN'T MATTER!!!! if it is, you appeal and cite the Kelo ruling, asking to override state authority; then go after some other property of his in another state. This will force the matter to a head again, and invite reform.
if not, you draft up a plan that meets the requirements to show the proposed growth, etc and convince the city to let you do it! THEN, don't build anything. This also forces the issue to the front, and highlights the areas already blighted with this issue so folks can see that nothing came of it but broken lives- no hotel, no marina, nada; just evicted americans who in good faith bought a home.

Obviously, it would be better if Souter's house was vulnerable, but all is not lost if its not.
Any pro bono lawyers out there wanna take this on?
C-

Lobotomy Boy
June 29, 2005, 01:06 PM
Ever since this ruling I have been hearing the strangest things--liberal anti-gun Democrats asking me how they can go about obtaining firearms, and proclaiming that they will fight to the death if Walmart or anyone else tries to take their homes, stuff like that. I think this ruling brings us one step closer to the ******hammer coming down.

Otherguy Overby
June 29, 2005, 01:28 PM
It seems to me the supremes may have caused an "unintended consequence" and granted us a tool to use against the court system.

Here's a not so "modest proposal" IOW, I'm not proposing they be forced to eat their offspring, or anything else not PC, so how many here would be willing to contribute to a non profit organization that would attempt to create ED situations for the properties of these miscreants. We might not even have to resort to standing on the cartridge box... :evil:

Regarding converting Souter's property to a hotel, I'd pay bigger bucks to stay a night or three there as it is now. Who knows, the "Souter" bedroom might become as famous as the Lincoln bedroom :)

Lobotomy Boy
June 29, 2005, 01:42 PM
From the AP:

Proposal: Replace Souter's home with 'Lost Liberty Hotel'
June 29, 2005

WEARE, N.H. --Following a Supreme Court ruling last week that gave local governments power to seize private property, someone has suggested taking over Justice David Souter's New Hampshire farmhouse and turning it into 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," Logan Darrow Clements of California wrote in a letter faxed to town officials in Weare on Tuesday.

Souter, a longtime Weare resident, joined in the 5-4 court decision allowing governments to seize private property from one owner and turn it over to another if doing so would benefit a community.

The letter dubbing the project the "Lost Liberty Hotel" was posted on conservative radio show host Rush Limbaugh's Web site. Clements said it would include a dining room called the "Just Desserts Cafe" an a museum focused on the "loss of freedom in America."

A message seeking comment from Souter was left at his office Wednesday morning. The court has recessed and Souter was still in Washington, one of his secretaries said.

A few police cruisers were parked on the edge of Souter's property Tuesday.

"It was a precaution, just being protective," said Lt. Mark Bodanza.

Clements is the CEO of Los Angeles-based Freestar Media that fights "abusive" government through a Web site and cable show. He plans to move to New Hampshire soon as part of the Free State Project, a group that supports limiting government powers, the Monitor reported.

The letter was passed along to the board of selectmen. If the five-member board were to endorse the hotel project, zoning laws would have to be changed and the hotel would have to get approval from the planning board. Messages seeking comment were left with Laura Buono, board chairwoman.

"Am I taking this seriously? But of course," said Charles Meany, Weare's code enforcement officer. "In lieu of the recent Supreme Court decision, I would imagine that some people are pretty much upset. If it is their right to pursue this type of end, then by all means let the process begin."

Souter's two-story colonial farmhouse is assessed at a little more than $100,000 and brought in $2,895 in property taxes last year.

The Supreme Court case involved the city of New London, Conn. The justices ruled that City Hall may take over property through eminent domain to make way for a hotel and convention center.

In his majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens said New London could pursue private development under the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property if the land is for public use. He said the project the city has in mind promises to bring more jobs and revenue.

At least eight states -- Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington -- forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow private property to be taken for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question.

cpileri
June 29, 2005, 01:47 PM
You too!
While I have not (and i have no plans to) in either word nor print mentioned what my feelings are toward any type of violent or political action, I heard conversations over the last few days that suprised me.

One absolute leftist gun-grabbing socialist in our department actually said we should revolt. Actually used the word, 'revolt'! I didn't call her on it and ask her if she thought it would be OK to use firearms for this revolt. I was just enjoying my suprise at hearing her say it at all.
C-

Aahzz
June 29, 2005, 03:18 PM
At least eight states -- Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington -- forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow private property to be taken for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question.

Man, am I glad I moved from CT to KY!!!

Evil_Ed
June 29, 2005, 04:10 PM
Text from an email I sent to friends who were discussing this article:

I have begun to subscribe to a new subset of libertarian philosophy. If you actively campaign to abrogate someone's rights you by implication voluntarily give up that right yourself. I say every time a politician somewhere stands up and says "Let's take that guys land and give it to (insert company/developer name here)" we should immediately start proceedings to ED that politicians property for a new chain of jiffy marts (we could call them "Liberty Marts"). If they want to play rough then we should too and hit them where they live/it hurts (the pocket book of course). We could pool our money to start a LLC with that business model. We could make a fortune AND stick it to the man. Any interested investors? :-)

publius
June 29, 2005, 11:00 PM
We shouldn't waste time compounding the damage by taking Souter's home.

We are going to have to amend the Constitution to get rid of the Kelo decision (and the ones on which it is based). Write to your Congresscritters and ask that they do that. Public use should mean public use, not an alternative private use which might bring in more tax revenue.

Gung-Ho
June 29, 2005, 11:39 PM
poetic, but it is still wrong.

Did you ever fight back against bullies...or just let them chase you home from school each day? I'm sorry, but as they say "whats good for the goose"...

publius
June 30, 2005, 07:39 AM
This is not like fighting back against bullies. It is well established that fighting is sometimes not the wrong thing to do.

Using this power against ANYONE, Souter included, ratifies the use of this power against EVERYONE.
"He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine

Taking Souter's home does us no good, but furthers this nasty precedent. If a bully hits you, don't hit yourself in response!

We need to amend the Constitution to get rid of the Kelo ruling. Write your Congresscritters and suggest that we do that. Tell them that public use should mean public use, as in roads, utilities, "common carriers." It should NOT mean some private use which will (or might) result in more tax revenue.

Doing that, or shooting the bastards, are the only alternatives which might reverse the Kelo ruling. Let's try the amendment first, shall we?

ravinraven
June 30, 2005, 09:05 AM
OK. How many times do we try the amendment before I dust off old Betsy.

rr

Master Blaster
June 30, 2005, 09:11 AM
This is wrong, but unfortunately its been going on for years in most states, you just dont hear about it because the fight usually gets resolved after some legal action in state court, and some more money being offered by the developer to sell.

About 10 years ago the City of Wilmington wanted 4 connected buildings which housed 4 very successful local businesses. An Office supply, a janitorial service and cleaning supply company, an appliance repair and resale shop, and a popular local tavern. All of these businesses had been in the buildings for at least 25 years, all were paying taxes, all were taking care of their properties. Del Tech a vocational school and junior college wanted to build a parking lot where they were located, 60 spaces and some landscaping. The city instituted ED procedings and offered 1/2 what the land was worth. Eventualy after a court fight the city offered enough that all of the owners could buy a new location for their businesses.

They moved and Deltech decided it did not have the money to build the lot after a year or so. So the buildings are still there, they were sold to a realestate management company which later defaulted on the loan form Del Tech, Del Tech still owns the buildings and they have been rented out to different businesses.

ED and your tax dollars at work.

patentmike
June 30, 2005, 09:11 AM
Amendment? So adding the words "and we really mean it this time" to the 5th Amendment will help? This action peacefully puts the stupidity of the court's opinion into focus so even a judge could understand it.

1911 guy
June 30, 2005, 09:27 AM
Don't get too high on Kentucky just yet. There's the foundation of a house lying under the AA highway outside Quincy. My Great Grandfathers. So much for emminent domian only to eliminate economic blight. They razed a good tobacco farm and a family home to lay asphalt over it.
I'll say this, too. Obviously we need to push for the reform of a bad ruling, but what better way to start than bringing it home to the heavy handed elitists who started it?

tech
June 30, 2005, 11:24 AM
1911 guy, although it sucks that your family lost its property they did not lose it to "private economic development".

Mike

Beren
June 30, 2005, 11:33 AM
Please write or call your Congressional reps to support and cosponsor S.1313 and H.R. 3087. These are bills to limit the use of eminent domain in the aftermath of Kelo. I dislike the use of the Commerce Clause to enforce it on the States, but I'll take it as a first step towards a constitutional amendment.

(a) In General- The power of eminent domain shall be available only for public use.

(b) Public Use- In this Act, the term `public use' shall not be construed to include economic development.

(c) Application- This Act shall apply to--

(1) all exercises of eminent domain power by the Federal Government; and

(2) all exercises of eminent domain power by State and local government through the use of Federal funds.

Thomas links to the bills:

S.1313 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.1313.IS:)
H.R. 3087 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.3087.IH:)

ravinraven
June 30, 2005, 12:02 PM
The entertainment value of this whole thing is almost worth the extra tax it'll probably cost. Here's the latest extremely funny, I think, goings on.

Last night my buddy and his girlfriend [not talking kids here. retirement age buddy and gf] are watching the news. She is unaware of the grab at Souter's shack. The guy from wherever who is launching the project is blabbering away and mentions Weare [or however it's spelt] NH. The GF falls off her barstool laughing. Her sister lives there and she's headed over there in a couple weeks for a visit. I'm tempted to go too.

So gf makes a call to sis. Turns out that the papers have been filed or served or whatever to the town clowns and they have to have a meeting about the topic. Sis says, "there's only a thousand people living here. Our two cops are guarding the judge's house right now."

Sounds to me like a real live Barney and Andy show.

Oh what tangled webs we weave when once we try to f*** the public out of it's property.

I meekly have to agree that if this is a bad thing to do it's bad to do it to the "judge." Sticking it to the culprits who launched the bad decision is sortta good though. But what this "grab" really illustrates is how this decision can be used to get even with someody you've got a bone-on for. The very first new grab after the decision was launched as a get even tactic.

rr

1911 guy
June 30, 2005, 12:35 PM
While I realize that the circumstances of my grandad losing his place is different from what's going on now, it still illustrates the point that bad things will be done even if it is contrary to what the law specifically spells out. Imagine what is gonna happen now that Mega-Lo-Mart and planning commissions now have virtual carte blanche.

Henry Bowman
June 30, 2005, 12:40 PM
I'm bettin' Souter isn't loosing any sleep over all this yet.

Sergeant Bob
June 30, 2005, 02:50 PM
It's real entertaining to talk about Souter's house being E.D'd but, even if the city (or whatever govt entity) were to try, it's either:

1. NOT going to happen, or

2. The deal will be on HIS terms.

He will win either way. No one can seriously believe that a SCROTUS Justice will be forcibly removed from his property can they?

ravinraven
June 30, 2005, 03:16 PM
Equal protection, etc. If they can do me, they can do him. Right? ...right??....answer me............................please answer me...right?

rr

publius
June 30, 2005, 05:54 PM
1911guy,

A road is exactly the kind of public use for which eminent domain was intended. The use against "economic blight" was a later invention, and out of that later invention grew the Kelo decision.

The main way that taxation made it into the whole argument was that truly abandoned properties tend to have owners who do not pay the property tax. The enhanced property tax revenue which would result from seizing the property and redeveloping it was used by the courts as a reason for seizing property, since it was presumed that the new owners would actually pay. That reasoning opened the door to declaring increased tax revenue a public benefit, which led to declaring it a public use, which led to Kelo.

Taking property for a road, or other utility or common carrier, or for a military installation or government building, is taking it for public use. Taking it and handing it to a developer so that he can "cure blight" or "increase tax revenue" or any other such thing is still taking it for private use, no matter what projected benefits may accrue to the public.

publius
June 30, 2005, 06:02 PM
Beren,

It looks to me as if they are using federal funds, not the commerce clause, as the hook upon which to hang federal power here.

But anyway, those bills are not enough, and are likely to absorb and dissipate any impetus which now exists for an amendment. Don't worry, they passed a law, everything is OK.

Well, it's not OK. If your town has one of these little schemes cooking, and they really like your land, they may just decide they like your land even more than they like federal funds for the project, if any. If that federal funding dries up at some point, they might then decide they like your land quite a bit more.

I still believe we should amend the Constitution to narrow the scope of what is "public use." I'd like to take a whack at "interstate commerce" as well, but one thing at a time. A law can do that at the federal level, going forward at least, but then, the law can be changed easily in the future as well. At the state and local levels, the law can only do so much, and most of the ED action goes on at the state and local levels. Taking away the federal funding only changes the looting math a bit, it doesn't change the nature of the looting.

publius
June 30, 2005, 06:24 PM
ravinraven: OK. How many times do we try the amendment before I dust off old Betsy.
patentmike: Amendment? So adding the words "and we really mean it this time" to the 5th Amendment will help?
Ask Mr. Jefferson, then look around you.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate, that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

Like I said, I'm for trying the amendment.

jcoiii
June 30, 2005, 07:03 PM
the people that will actually take your land and sign the papers are your own local officials. hopefully, everyone will start paying more attention to their town/city/state elections.

mountainclmbr
July 1, 2005, 10:48 PM
If they change the law, I hope it is only after Souter gets $5 and then gets roughly booted from the family home. I truly believe in "what goes around comes around!!!"

cracked butt
July 1, 2005, 11:42 PM
It aint worth it, it only reinforces Souter's position.

Right now property ownership is a myth and has been for a long time.

You don't own property, you rent it from the government.

You have to ask permission to build a house on the land, once you have a house, you have to ask permission to put a new roof on it, to add an electrical outlet, or to build a fence or add a swimming pool. These permits cost money and subject you to the whims of petty tyrants that run local governments. If your use of property doesn't fit with the local government's model of how it should be used, no permit for you.

You have to pay taxes on your land to own it. With nearly every other commodity, you pay a sales tax up front and never pay a tax on it again. With land or property, you pay a tax every year, and if you are delinquent, the government will be happy to relieve you of your property that has become a tax burden.

Government can take your property or any portion of it at any time 'for the common good'

Some land has permanent deed restrictions on it- for all eternity or until lawyers or government no longer exists, whichever comes first, you and future 'owners' of a piece of property can't use the property in the ways the 'owner' sees fit. Some might argue that this is a good idea in order to save the environment, reduce sprawl, or whatever the socialist cause of the day is. There are still deeds that exist that have restrictions that state that the dwelling or property cannot be sold to Jews or blacks (now invalid at least) which seemed like a really good idea to enough people 50 years ago.

Otherguy Overby
July 2, 2005, 09:48 AM
Cracked Butt, there are still some areas with very few restrictions. Where I am, the restrictions are: If you want to build something with plumbing and a toilet, some part of the land must pass a perc test for septic. You also can't drill a well withing 100 feet of a septic tank/drain field.

That's it.

Of course, it is in an unincorporated area. I could put in a chicken farm, doze off all the trees, put up any buildings I want, whatever. No permits required. Yes, I have to pay taxes, but they are on the low side (less than 1/2 of 1% of value) for what I own.

I can shoot anytime I want, hunt the king's critters during a government approved season or poach anytime with very little risk of getting caught.

Lastly, I do agree with you that if the government can tax it and take it away from you for some reason, you don't really own it. I'm just lucky enough to have found an area where there remains some standard of: it's yours, do what you want with it.

GunGoBoom
July 2, 2005, 01:39 PM
Actually used the word, 'revolt'! I didn't call her on it and ask her if she thought it would be OK to use firearms for this revolt.

Yeah, what's she gonna revolt with? My house's smoke detectors are going off, I think from all the cogs finally beginning to turn in the anti-gun liberals' minds.

JohnKSa
July 2, 2005, 11:27 PM
You don't own property, you rent it from the government.Ding! Ding!

Don't believe it? Try not paying your rent (property taxes) and see how long it takes for them to begin reposession proceedings...

The government owns all real estate in the U.S. and only rents it to the citizenry.

horge
July 3, 2005, 04:29 PM
REAL ESTATE.

That's literally translated 'Royal Property', which a monarch's subjects could merely obtain tenancy over, but never actual ownership. God forbid Americans could actually own their homes and land ---or else they'd have some power over their rulers.

:banghead:

The Free World looks to you guys in ways you may not be aware of.
Fight this.

Fletchette
July 4, 2005, 12:24 AM
Souter's two-story colonial farmhouse is assessed at a little more than $100,000 and brought in $2,895 in property taxes last year.

I am SO sick of elitist, traitorist bastards passing/interpreting/enforcing laws in a blantantly unConstitutional fashion, and expecting that they are immune from these laws, that I will personally pay the local government $3000 in taxes a year just to take his house away. I will sign a contract stating so. There. Now they have a guaranteed increase in precious "revenue". Now take his house!

For those that say that it would be wrong, tough. It is time to fight fire with fire.

I think we should file similar requests to seize any and all property (not just land) from all of the five Supreme Court yahoos that obviously cannot read at a fourth grade level.

:fire:

ravinraven
July 4, 2005, 12:42 AM
And if you'll grant me a month in the summer and a month in the winter living there, I'll pay half the taxes.

Deal?

rr

Fletchette
July 4, 2005, 11:26 AM
And if you'll grant me a month in the summer and a month in the winter living there, I'll pay half the taxes.

Deal?

Sounds good to me! We could probably get a lot of people willing to spend a few bucks to seize property from Supreme Court yahoos. Hmmmm....I feel an idea perculating...

Anyhow, what's so complicated about my name? I have thought about changing it (bored) but then I'd lose my precious "senior member" standing and become a lowly newbie again. (yes, that is superficial).

ravinraven
July 4, 2005, 11:56 AM
alzhighmeer's. can't remember a name from start to finish. I had a prof named So one ime. Later a friend named Hu. About right!

One good thing about this decision is that we can file on the houses of pols we don't like. Say members of the town board who file on someone else's property. You might not get their digs, but you'd keep them busy fighting the actions. Just the minute one action bites the dust, somebody else file another.

If this idea catches on, every lawyer involved in every case owes me a commission. My idea!

rr

riverdog
July 5, 2005, 12:15 PM
Seems to me you could just turn his NH house into a time-share. NH would make a lot more in tax revenue.

publius
July 5, 2005, 05:31 PM
It's way too easy to get swept up in the fun of looting.

Fletchette
July 5, 2005, 07:22 PM
It's way too easy to get swept up in the fun of looting.

Looting is a lot like violence. If you stand on an ivory tower and simply state the "violence is bad" you are a pacifist, and evil people will walk all over you. If you stand around when someone is getting mugged and you simply say, "It's none of my business" again, criminals prevail. Someone, somewhere needs to give these elitists a bloody nose.

If you enjoyed reading about "Private company wishes to build hotel on Justice Souter's land :)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!