The Kelo Decision Revisited: An Ironic Twist

The Kelo decision by the Supreme Court has stirred a lot of controversy, as noted in an earlier posting.

The following twist comes from Justice Souter's home state of New Hampshire:

Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court...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."...

"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."...

The Just Desserts Cafe in the Lost Liberty Hotel, proposed to be built on what would have been called - one week ago - Justice Souter's private property, free from theft by the government.

How ironic.

But, then again, maybe all of us are approaching this with the wrong thought process. Since government itself neither creates economic value nor generates tax revenue, why don't we we interpret the Kelo decision in a more creative way:

Any time a government agency decides to take away our families' private property, let's make that agency's physical location the replacement target to convert from a government building to a private sector entity that generates lots of tax revenue.

This approach would have several benefits: First, it would save our homes. Second, it would shrink the size of government. Third, it would accelerate the further reduction of our taxes.

Sounds about as logical as the Kelo decision, no? And in doing so, we would simply be abiding by the laws of our land. Any takers?