by Col Quisp » Sun Jul 10, 2005 3:08 pm
Found this article and thought it was interesting:<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/07/10/wjudge10.xml">news.telegraph.co.uk/news...udge10.xml</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>US judge set to lose home under law he brought in<br>By Charles Laurence in New York<br>(Filed: 10/07/2005)<br><br>A US Supreme Court Judge could lose his country farmhouse thanks to a controversial law which he himself voted to bring in.<br><br>Furious protesters are plotting to seize David Souter's $150,000 (£86,400) 19th century home and turn it into a hotel after he voted to give towns the legal right to make compulsory purchases. They view his support for the legislation as an affront to every American's inviolable right to personal property.<br> <br>In retaliation, they are determined to make him pay with the loss of his home in the countryside outside the town of Weare in New Hampshire, where the official state motto is "Live Free or Die". The hotel would be called The Lost Freedom, and its restaurant, The Just Desserts.<br><br>Under the new law, a town may issue a compulsory purchase order - known in America as purchase by "eminent domain" - on a private property and pass it on to a commercial developer if it considers that the development would benefit the town and its people as a whole.<br><br>Mr Souter cast the swing vote in the unpopular 5-to-4 court decision in the case of Kelo vs City of New London, Connecticut.<br><br>Opinion polls show that 95 per cent of Americans disapprove of the ruling and believe that compulsory purchase should be used only to transfer ownership of blighted property which has become a danger to the community.<br><br>Logan Darrow Clements is the publishing entrepreneur and free-markets campaigner behind the counter-attack.<br><br>"By his own ruling, Weare the town has the justification for such an action because the hotel project we are submitting will benefit the town by creating new jobs and a higher tax revenue," he said.<br><br>According to town officials, the audacious bid has a chance of success. "As far as we are concerned, we need to take this seriously under these new rules and are setting up meetings," said Charles Meany, Weare's official in charge of planning.<br><br>He warned, however, that Mr Souter's house was in a protected rural area.<br><br>Weare, population 8,500, has five councillors, known as "selectmen", who have not so far commented. Even if they decide not to order Mr Souter to sell his house, the judge will be at the mercy of the townspeople.<br><br>"The rules are that if the selectmen say no, Mr Clements can put the plan to the town on an electoral ballot next spring," Mr Meany said.<br><br>Mr Clements, 36, who made his fortune with a business magazine called American Ventures, said: "I only announced the plan six days ago, but since then I have had 5,000 offers of help from venture capitalists wanting to put in money, to architects wanting to draw the plans."<br><br>Mr Souter, who has had his house in Weare for years and is expected to spend the summer there, might be surprised by the reaction of old acquaintances in the village.<br><br>"We just had a senior citizens' meeting, and we don't like this ruling, we don't like it at all," said June Eaton, 67.<br><br>"We can't imagine what Mr Souter thinks he is doing: he is certainly not thinking of other people, and if he loses his house, he deserves it."<br><br>A Supreme Court spokesman said that the judge had "no comment" on his ruling or its consequences.<br> <p></p><i></i>
