Kelo leads to first (credited) seizure
Freeport is building a new private marina. One of my problems with the Kelo case that I haven't seen mentioned in the vast coverage of the case is that it supports this strange notion that a city must grow and expand. Is the role of a government really to genereate revenue for itself?
Believe it or not, there is a market for quiet little towns that aren't trying to get the latest and newest department stores to come to town. If towns were people, I'd tell them that it's okay to be small. The Kelo case just makes me feel as though too many town councils are trying to build a legacy that their residents don't want. I understand that this may well be an issue for the electorate, but I stopped trusting and believing in the electorate a long time ago. It seems that voters have less and less power these days. Part of that is because governments, even local governments, have gotten uncontrollably large, and there seems to be something inherent in governments that make them grow larger - in order to do that, and to justify their growth, these governments must manage and micro-manage larger and larger areas that impact the lives of individuals. Thus, the electorate must be more and more informed about which group, council or other government controls their lives.
I know from dealing with my local government on a zoning issue two things: 1) My councilman does not tell me the truth - I'm not saying he lies, but he plays both sides in such a way that it is difficult for me to truly know what's going on; 2) All they do is pass the buck - "it isn't the City, it's the State; it's the Council; it's the ____ Board; no, actually it is the City." Round and round we go.
Anyway, back to my main point - sometimes it's fine to have a city or a neighborhood that does nothing more than quietly and satisfactorily house its citizens or residents. What Kelo represents (in addition to the issue of collectivism and goverment's ultimate ownership of private property) is the notion that people must be producing something tangible at all times or become valueless to society - apparently, this is even true of home purchasing decisions.
As I've joked for years, someday we'll all live in Wal-Partments. That way, the cities can bleed as much tax revenue out of us as possible.
Really, really saddening decisions by the Supreme Court lately.
Kid H.
P.S. Boortz also has a good round-up of this issue today.
Believe it or not, there is a market for quiet little towns that aren't trying to get the latest and newest department stores to come to town. If towns were people, I'd tell them that it's okay to be small. The Kelo case just makes me feel as though too many town councils are trying to build a legacy that their residents don't want. I understand that this may well be an issue for the electorate, but I stopped trusting and believing in the electorate a long time ago. It seems that voters have less and less power these days. Part of that is because governments, even local governments, have gotten uncontrollably large, and there seems to be something inherent in governments that make them grow larger - in order to do that, and to justify their growth, these governments must manage and micro-manage larger and larger areas that impact the lives of individuals. Thus, the electorate must be more and more informed about which group, council or other government controls their lives.
I know from dealing with my local government on a zoning issue two things: 1) My councilman does not tell me the truth - I'm not saying he lies, but he plays both sides in such a way that it is difficult for me to truly know what's going on; 2) All they do is pass the buck - "it isn't the City, it's the State; it's the Council; it's the ____ Board; no, actually it is the City." Round and round we go.
Anyway, back to my main point - sometimes it's fine to have a city or a neighborhood that does nothing more than quietly and satisfactorily house its citizens or residents. What Kelo represents (in addition to the issue of collectivism and goverment's ultimate ownership of private property) is the notion that people must be producing something tangible at all times or become valueless to society - apparently, this is even true of home purchasing decisions.
As I've joked for years, someday we'll all live in Wal-Partments. That way, the cities can bleed as much tax revenue out of us as possible.
Really, really saddening decisions by the Supreme Court lately.
Kid H.
P.S. Boortz also has a good round-up of this issue today.
posted by The Management at 2:04 PM
2 Comments:
Found this article, pretty funny about how karma works.
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
Awesome....
Otter
Post a Comment
<< Home