Peeved by the Supreme Court’s decision to support the government seizure of private land for development, a group of activists is trying to get Justice David Souter evicted from his New Hampshire home under the eminent domain law.
The group says that Souter’s home should be razed and the land set aside for the “Lost Liberty Hotel.”
Led by Californian Logan Darrow Clements, Freestar Media already has the minimum 25 signatures it needs to put the issue on the ballot in Weare, New Hampshire’s next town meeting, scheduled for March.
In the Supreme Court case Kelo vs. New London, Souter sided with the 5-4 majority…
That was the case where homeowners lost their homes to a municipal project spearheaded by the Pharmco Pfizer.
The folks who are turning the tables on one of the Supreme Court Justices are holding a rally in New Hampshire, this weekend. They’ll be reporting back at their website.
Yes, they probably qualify as over-the-top Libertarians; but, then, so do some of the troops in the DU Army. It’s still nice to see a segment of the Washington, ivory tower-elite threatened with one of their own decisions.
as I understand it, this decision only expanded the existing law. under the previous law, property could be seized by eminent domain for a “public” purpose. basically, this included any project in which the public was allowed. like, say, a shopping mall. this included projects that were privately-owned like, say, a railroad line.
the current decision expanded “public” purpose to include economic development projects that the public was not invited into. like, say, condos.
so: if you are being compensated for your property, why does it matter all that much if they are building a shopping mall, a railroad line, or condominiums?
As much as I would like to wish them luck, I just can’t support the government taking anybody’s property to just to give to another with hopes of increased tax revenues. Without property rights, we don’t have any rights at all.
no doug, a public purpose is a road, a courthouse, a post office, etc.. Public buildings and infrastructure are what has always (until very recently) been viewed as the public use requirement.
Brilliant! Turnabout is fair play, and it would seem that the Supreme Court didn’t realize the ramifications of the decision. While I think property seizure for commercial purposes is vile (and I think the wild success of the public road system in the U.S. is a fine example of why we should have a serious public railroad system – to address the issue of seizing property for railroads and improve transportation efficiency), I think seizing the property of members of the Court is a fine way to make it clear to members of the court that if the government is given too much authority, it can also be used against the justices themselves.
…and it would seem that the Supreme Court didn’t realize the ramifications of the decision.
I find it difficult to believe that any Supreme Court justice does not “realize the ramifications of the decision”, on any decision they hand down.
I like the idea of “sticking it to the man” as much as the next guy, I just dislike the fact that their stategy has only targeted 1 of the 5 justices would voted for the majority opinion.
It will be interesting to see what the residents of Weare, New Hampshire think of this Californian’s media stunt.
To think that you had a piece of property that was Bought for $4000 30 years ago, and the property taxes havent gone up. Even with impreovements the value hasnt gone up much. Its not a popular area that is OVER priced, and the land is abit over grown.
WOW, what a NICe CHEAP place to build WALMART.
So what you have to evict 12 home owners, that THEn have to go into the market of Inflated houseing costs… Cant find a home for less then $100,000, from a home that WAS, only taxed $40,000 of VALUE..
doug, I dont think you have had any property that has been carried down the family line. THEY AINT going to give you anymore then what the STATE taxed you at.
My grandmother’s house in Baltimore was seized through eminent domain (early 1970s), shortly after my grandfather’s death, to build low-income housing. This act was my first exposure to the manner in which governments operate.
a general reply:
my point is this. for a long time, eminent domain has been used to transfer property from one private owner to another. railroads are a long-standing example. community development was upheld as a public purpose in Berman v. Parker in 1954, and the court sanctioned land reform via eminent domain in Hawaii many years ago.
what the Supremes did in this particular case was say that general economic development is enough of a “public purpose,” to allow an eminent domain seizure, even if the public is not invited to use (ie shop or go to a football game) the property after it is seized.
my point is this – people are reacting very emotionally to this decision, as if it took away some right they had before. fact of the matter is that eminent domain has been used to hand land from one private citizen to another for a LONG time.
I say, good show ol’ chap. I like the direction this is heading, now if we could only snap the RIAA/MPAA’s trap against themselves, I would have a great stick-it-to-the-man week ahead
I have to laugh at some of these comments, ” who cares about gov. taking someones property” ??? I guess it depends if YOU are that someone !!! remember that WE the PEOPLE are the GOVERMENT, NOT the supreme court, their job is in most cases to wrongly interpet the CONSTUTION of this great nation, not make laws. leave that to the legislative branch, where it belongs.
Am I understanding this correctly?
I could (if living in the US) be evicted from my home so that someone who wants the land I own can build something else, whilst only getting a minimal re-imbursement?
I personally think that is shocking. Please, please tell me I have misunderstood.
How often does this actually happen?
Graeme — while it hasn’t been practiced as widely or frequently since the “relocate the poor” days of Urban Renewal — the phenomenon is a time-honored part of American economics. Local governments are even quite willing to screw long-standing businesses if it suits their agenda.
One portion of the problem lies with Americans property taxes which traditionally pay a rate associated with the appraised value. Oftimes, the rate of the tax is increased rather than actually appraising property at anything near its market value. Then, when it is “taken”, the government justifies the appraised value as “compensation”.
This goes a long way back. Hey! Let’s get our native population going on this too! They teach school children not to bully, but some animals are more equal than others.
I disagree with some of you here.
The value is calculated by an independent appraiser, based upon the prevailing real estate prices in that area. In other words, what the home would sell for on the open market. This is not what YOU value it at, or the ultimate owner thinks it is worth. Often the end user will pay more to get an earlier closing date and to avoid the hassles.
What a government authority values a piece of property at has nothing to do with the actual value, it is only the rate for taxation. The insured value or replacement cost is a much more accurate price. Now this may not be the practice across the entire country so check with your local authorities.
I am in favor of eminent domain, but only when the public good benefits. This includes highways, railroads, parks, and removing homes from a flood plain. I don’t think a private business, such as the example of WalMart or an industrial mall is a good use for eminent domain.
Pat — it’s nice if the appraiser really is independent. I worked for a firm that went through the whole challenge process after the early rounds decided their property was to be taken. All they got was screwed. The arbitration for property holders, case after case, comes down on the side of government — and they rarely offer more than tax role prices.
They’re going after Steohen Breyer’s home too.