Poetic Justice Souter

Several bojillion readers have just forwarded this proposal to build a tax-revenue generating, job creating hotel at 34 Cilley Hill Road in Weare, New Hampshire. That'd require the demolition of the house there after it's seized via eminent domain from it's current owner—some guy named Dave Souter. According to the press release:

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."

UPDATE: And New Jersey had better watch out as well.

Comments

Dynamist | June 28, 2005, 2:19pm | #

Even though such a proposal might be reasonable economically, and damn funny poetic justice, it is still wrong. I'll cling to my reading of the Consitution until they reinterpret it from my cold, dead fingers.

Damon | June 28, 2005, 2:21pm | #

Brilliant~!

Soreheaduk | June 28, 2005, 2:23pm | #

Ah lurv yoo man!

linguist | June 28, 2005, 2:27pm | #

Forgive this way, way off-topic comment, but...

just a moment ago I thought to myself, hey, maybe I should buy a Reason T-Shirt. So I followed the link and saw the goods.

Here's my question. Since most people on this board are always complaining that there are few too women 'round these parts, would it hurt to put up a couple of items for women? (If there already are such animals and I just missed them, well, then, you've hidden them well!)

SDoSD | June 28, 2005, 2:37pm | #

another job for the secret designers of secret designs!

secret designer | June 28, 2005, 2:41pm | #

get your secret designer baby doll t here

ALF | June 28, 2005, 2:47pm | #

Which book has the more unreadable prose - the Bible or Atlas Shrugged? Hmmmm....... Either way, both are good for insomniacs.

Eddy | June 28, 2005, 2:48pm | #

Why I've never seen a better investment opportunity. I can't wait to stay and dine there. I think I'll eat cake.

zach | June 28, 2005, 2:50pm | #

maybe we should use ED to boot the entire population of the state of pennsylvania, and serve the common good by converting it into a space where one can own land without being booted off of it.

joe | June 28, 2005, 3:01pm | #

"another job for the secret designers of secret designs!"

Shh!

Gary | June 28, 2005, 3:10pm | #

Somehow I don't think the funding of this little venture will be much of an issue.

Eric the .5b | June 28, 2005, 3:13pm | #

get your secret designer baby doll t here

Badass!

MP | June 28, 2005, 3:15pm | #

All kidding aside, the courts would strike this down as arbitrary and capricious. Thus it would lose on Substantive Due Process grounds, another fine "out of our ass" invention of our SCOTUS overlords.

Brian Courts | June 28, 2005, 3:21pm | #

From the second article:

"Dibs on Nevada," said California Governor Schwarzenegger.

After all the depressing news on the freedom front as of late, any humor is greatly appreciated Julian - thanks for passing those along.

Think we can start a collection to support the project in New Hampshire? Maybe Reason can get a conference room or something named in its honor.

AJtall | June 28, 2005, 3:23pm | #

Perfect idea. Let's do the same for homes of Breyer, Ginsburg, Stevens, and Kennedy too. See how it feels now. Let's practice on them what they preach.

Another idea. For the justices who support race-based affirmative action, let's replace them with minorities like Janice Rogers, Walter Williams, Emilio Garza, and Alberto Gonzales, among others.

linguist | June 28, 2005, 3:28pm | #

LOL, yes, I already got my SDoSD baby dolls (see, SOMEBODY was thinking about how hot Smacky and Jennifer and I would look), that was what made me want a Reason one.

Dave | June 28, 2005, 3:31pm | #

Reminds me of when Clinton declared a big chunk of Utah off limits to any development, and Robert Redford had much praise for the decision. Some Utah politician was soon looking into having Redford's Sundance ranch similarly listed. You've got to love people who support laws that are great....for other people.

secret designer | June 28, 2005, 3:42pm | #

LOL, yes, I already got my SDoSD baby dolls (see, SOMEBODY was thinking about how hot Smacky and Jennifer and I would look), that was what made me want a Reason one.

Unfortunately, the secret designers cannot design a Reason babydoll, lest the secret designers be outed during the copyright infringement case. Then the secret designers would have to get day jobs.

smacky | June 28, 2005, 3:45pm | #

How about a Reason house frock?

...evening gown?

... mu-muu?

Anon | June 28, 2005, 3:49pm | #

Given that this is Free State New Hampshire, let us suppose that a member of Souter's local council, animated by similar animus, decided to make Souter's home a park. This would surely fall under public use. Would this be acceptable to the commenters here, since that is pretty much following the letter of the Constitution? And if not, is the eventual goal Constitutional amendment? Barring that, it seems that some other, necessarily non-judicial, procedure must be developed to keep ED abuse in check.

Anon

free form | June 28, 2005, 3:50pm | #

Haha, smacky...a house frock! Crackin' me up...

I could wear it to the Super Food Mart when I shuffle up there to get my cigs and Pepsi. Make sure I show it off.

Troy | June 28, 2005, 3:52pm | #

Isn't one of the primary purposes and justifications for government to protect property rights? And now, since property rights have essentially be negated, doesnt this decision make the purpose of government moot and render its justification for existence nugatory?
A couple of weeks ago, this would have been a stupid idea. They fucked up in announcing thier motivations. If they would have asked for a Hotel 8 or something, then after it opened, buy it out and THEN make it into the museum.
Still, I think the city can go forward. Souter would be forced to argue why HIS house should be spared. I think that the courts would let him off the hook. But the bullshit reason that they would give would just undermind the respect for the authority of the court.
I think we can now see how local governments can use this to intimidate people. You fight city hall, they turn your house into a 7-11.

Some Guy With A Paypal Account | June 28, 2005, 4:00pm | #

I'm in. Incorporate the hotel-building firm, sell shares in a dutch-auction style offering. Allow us to pay fees should the issue be oversubscribed (as I think it would).

The Wine Commonsewer | June 28, 2005, 4:07pm | #

TWC is going out on a limb here to predict that this is just a very pleasant dream but will never happen. That's because Justice Souter is one of those politically well-connected people that Justice O'Conner was referring to when she said this:

The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process

Emphasis added.

The link is to a Newsday story that carried the quote, nothing real fun.

smacky | June 28, 2005, 4:10pm | #

I could wear it to the Super Food Mart when I shuffle up there to get my cigs and Pepsi. Make sure I show it off.

Now that's what I call s-s-sexy! Ha ha. That would be great free advertising for Reason. I expect a portion of the profits when they decide to implement my suggestion. Oh! I've got another one: Reason overalls. They would look great at the county fair, smeared with raw goat milk, pig shit, and french fry grease. See? What a great advertising campaign I've thought of for Reason. (*pats self on back*)

(Hey, it's better than pop-up windows.)

joe | June 28, 2005, 4:10pm | #

"Barring that, it seems that some other, necessarily non-judicial, procedure must be developed to keep ED abuse in check."

My thoughts exactly. I propose a National Planning Commission, which state, local, and federal governments would have to appear before, and get a permit, before they can do any eminent domain takings. Or maybe any takings that will result in a private use on the taken land.

Here's how it works - under the Due Process and Equal Protection powers, Congress adopts legislation in recognition of the threat to those rights that the current state of takings law poses. The feds, of course, have the right to stick their nose into any government action in order to make sure that the states and municipalities aren't depriving people of their privileges and immunities under the Constitution.

They then empower the National Planning Commission to review all takings cases, or whatever subset they deem worthy of close review, to make sure they are sufficiently protective of due process and equal protection rights.

Now, to do this, they'd have to draw up a set of standards (or pass enabling legislation, allowing the Commission or HUD or somebody to do it for them) that the governments' actions have to meet. For example, the standards might require a showing that the minimum amount of land is being taken, that there was an adequate public process, or that the public purpose goals could not be achieved without the takings. They could also make them do a parcel by parcel defense of the takings, and show why alternatives are inadequate. They could also define economic status as a category of concern under the equal protection clause, which would subject any taking that disproportionately impacts lower income people to a high level of scrutiny. It is well within the power of Congress to draw up pretty much whatever regs it wants, in order to protect the rights it is authorized to protect.

So the Commission gets one member appointed by the president, one by the HUD Sec, one from Commerce, one from Transportation, one from Interior, one from EPA, and one from the Civil Rights Division of Justice.

Whaddya thinka that?

zach | June 28, 2005, 4:21pm | #

it sounds like just the thing. more commissions and standards are just what this country needs, as they clearly are the driving force behind all that is good in the world.

joe | June 28, 2005, 4:23pm | #

Some people bitch, some people try to solve problems.

zach | June 28, 2005, 4:31pm | #

and the rest, in disgust, dump their problems on commissions. ;)

Russ D | June 28, 2005, 4:41pm | #

joe,

My first thought is that all people appointed to a national planning commission would already be pre-disposed to favoring ED most of the time. So the standards would be lax. After a time legislation would be passed, a la PATRIOT, listing all the valid reasons to bypass the planning commission anyway.

David | June 28, 2005, 4:49pm | #

Joe,

I know you posted that sarcastically, but some reasonable criteria could be established, at least at the state level. Maybe a checklist of conditions where a private to private taking would be acceptable,as a last resort. Excluding things like "We'll build a bigger, more expensive home on this land and pay more taxes." Maybe including something like building people new homes of the same square footage, on the same acreage. Something that holds developers to their promises of jobs and taxes.

Anything is better than connected crony wants land, uses rented pols to get it.

zach | June 28, 2005, 4:50pm | #

I know you posted that sarcastically...

i don't know that. do you think he knows that?

joe | June 28, 2005, 4:51pm | #

Russ D,

One of the purposes of my plan is to put these decisions firmly within the field of politics. If something as outrageous as the Kelo takings was passed, the president would have hell to pay. There would be a strong incentive to staff the commission and write regulations in ways that are broadly acceptable to society.

Some Voter | June 28, 2005, 4:54pm | #

There would be a strong incentive to staff the commission and write regulations in ways that are broadly acceptable to society.

As opposed to now, when there's suddenly a very strong incentive to pay real close attention to a theoretically accountable group of jackasses who maintain their power by having elections for municipal positions in off-years.

Fark that. National bureaucracy is the answer here.

joe | June 28, 2005, 4:56pm | #

David,

I am completely serious. I believe there are constitutional rights issues at stake, and that current state of the law doesn't adequately protect them. We need them to be more vigorously protected. There should be state-level protections as well, but just as we don't let the city fathers of Possumbutt, Louisianna decide how to protect the Bill of Rights rights of the residents of their black slum, we also need the feds to have a mechanism to protect the rights of property owners. And it would foster good planning practice, too.

BTW, if anyone were to object to a National Planning Commission on the grounds that they don't want politics injected into the pristine product of city planning efforts, I volunteer to laugh in his face and tell him horror stories.

Darren Stevens | June 28, 2005, 4:58pm | #

As for Resason advertisements on articles of clothing, why stop there?

Why not on rolling papers and bullets? School voucher forms?

zach | June 28, 2005, 5:04pm | #

what then makes you think that the products of said "NPC" will be pristine by contrast? maybe we need a National Planning Commission Review Panel. then in a few years, a National Planning Commission Review Panel Review Board. which of course would necessitate an Office of National Planning Commission Review Panel Review Board Internal Affairs.

yes, the ONPCRPRBIA is clearly the answer.

nmg | June 28, 2005, 5:05pm | #

joe was not being serious. The "national plannign commission" title alone should give it away. I am certain he was merely mocking those who loudly protest violations of states' rights (which often happens on this board) yet are dismayed by the Kelo case which joe apparenlty mistakenly believes was based on a respect for states rights. If that is the case I would ask him why the states aren't allowed to define "speech" as "anything you say in your own home only". Why aren't they allowed to define "privacy" any way they like, including "any action that is not an abortion"? Hmmmmmm?

(correct me joe if I'm mistaken but I just can't believe that anyone would seriously offer such a proposal as your "national planning commission", even the title conveys ominous overtones of central planning/Maoism)


nmg

Steve | June 28, 2005, 5:05pm | #

I think I've figured out joe's problem, and it's not statism, per se. It's something like "politicaphilia." Any collective decision, any decision reached by "the political process" must be a good one. As opposed to my view, and P.J. O'Rourke's, that "Politics is the business of getting power and privilege without possessing merit."

Of course, "politics" is still our best answer for solving some problems. But politics should be a last resort. Decisions reached outside of politics, by people negotiating freely, should be the rule.

nmg | June 28, 2005, 5:10pm | #

check that. didn't see joe's response. I thought for sure he was joking.

David | June 28, 2005, 5:10pm | #

As for Resason advertisements on articles of clothing, why stop there?

Why not on rolling papers and bullets? School voucher forms?

Derwood,

They do offer the reason thong. Brilliant, because when you see it up close you're open to suggestion(and advertising).

zach | June 28, 2005, 5:10pm | #

my thoughts exactly steve. otherwise we might end up with a $20 million ONPCRPRBIA.

fyodor | June 28, 2005, 5:13pm | #

joe, it's not the job of a commission to protect constitutional rights, it's the job of the courts. And that's the answer to your question whether your joking or serious.

Stevo Darkly | June 28, 2005, 5:14pm | #

I was going to say, they do at least offer the Reason thong.

I assume this is intended for female wear, right? Please don't tell me that men wear those.

Brian Courts | June 28, 2005, 5:25pm | #

Some people bitch, some people try to solve problems.

Would rather have more bitching and less problems solving - at least bitching doesn't fuck things up worse than they already are :-)

Isaac Bartram | June 28, 2005, 5:25pm | #

fyodor

Actually, every public official swears to "defend the constitution". So I would say it's every public official's duty to "protect constitutional rights". But when was the last time you heard a politician say "I can't vote for that, it's unconstitutional!"

(I can think of only two, one from each party, and they're considered slightly KOOKY.)

And frankly the last few presidents don't even seem to be aware of its existence, and one of them had been a professor of constitutional law (but you wouldn't know it from his administration).

Eric the .5b | June 28, 2005, 5:28pm | #

BTW, if anyone were to object to a National Planning Commission on the grounds that they don't want politics injected into the pristine product of city planning efforts...

Wow, zing, because anyone here in these never-ending threads has even suggested anything like that.

Somehow, I think anyone with a brain could guess why libertarians and federalists might not like a National Planning Commission.

the regulator | June 28, 2005, 5:31pm | #

I wear my reason thong everytime I go to Possumbutt, Louisianna. The city fathers dig how it looks on men.

Andrew | June 28, 2005, 5:31pm | #

Hmm several comments about how this could be ruled unlawful due to capriciousness/arbitrariness and how they should have hidden the purpose of the hotel. But as I understand it, the proposal is neither capricious nor arbitrary. The hotel could only be built on the property of a supreme who voted for the measure for it to actually make money.

So this is one of 5 or so places that it could be, but the only such place in the proposed town. This is the traditional justification for economic developement ED use. Acquiring property to lure a big developer to your town instead of having them choose to go somewhere else. As far as I can see the proposal fits squarely within the supreme court ruling.

Dude | June 28, 2005, 5:39pm | #

Never mind New Hampshire: I'd like to erect a nature preserve in Crawford, Texas...

Brian Courts | June 28, 2005, 5:43pm | #

Andrew is exactly right - it's not arbitrary or capricious at all. It's not like someone randomly picked this site - it has become valuable for its symbolic nature. That is undeniable if someone is willing to spend the money to build the hotel. How the site became valuable for another purpose is irrelevant. And given the reasoning in this case, the city would be well within its rights to determine that such a development would be more beneficial, or better serve a "public purpose" than Justice Souters home.

Mike | June 28, 2005, 5:45pm | #

"National Planning Commission"
If that came to fruition K st. would nut in thier collective pants. Think about the lobbying that would go on there.

"Some people bitch, some people try to solve problems"

Its not that you are trying to solve the problem Joe its you are trying to do it with the force of the sword "government". Thats the problem.

Kirsten | June 28, 2005, 6:28pm | #

I believe there are constitutional rights issues at stake, and that current state of the law doesn't adequately protect them. We need them to be more vigorously protected.

Doing more of the same and expecting a different result is the essence of insanity.

Get this through your head:
It doesn't matter how goddamned many laws you put on the books. If the judge and jury are in bed with the accused, then we all know how the law is going to be "interpreted" before we even begin. The Constitution is easily circumvented through creative interpretation, and any other laws can be as well.

6Gun | June 28, 2005, 6:33pm | #

correct me joe if I'm mistaken but I just can't believe that anyone would seriously offer such a proposal as your "national planning commission", even the title conveys ominous overtones of central planning/Maoism

Paging Mr. Lowry. Mr. Lowry?

Shawn Smith | June 28, 2005, 8:27pm | #

<pedantic>

...after it's seized via eminent domain from it's current owner...

Golly, Julian, you too? I thought I only saw that kind of crap on Slashdot. And even after you got the first "it's" correct. Sheeeeesh.

</pedantic>

cjp | June 28, 2005, 9:51pm | #

Um, Shawn, "after it's seized" is correct.

"After it is seized."

cjp | June 28, 2005, 9:52pm | #

And only now, after submitting, do I notice the second "it's."

Which should embarass both Julian and me greatly.

Stevo Darkly | June 28, 2005, 10:27pm | #

Well, irregardless, cjp, we knows you meaned well, and if you was mistaken, most people could care less.

Russ D | June 28, 2005, 10:52pm | #

joe,

One of the purposes of my plan is to put these decisions firmly within the field of politics.

It already is in the field of politics. ED can't happen without the blessing of government.

If something as outrageous as the Kelo takings was passed, the president would have hell to pay.

Even if I wanted to be that naiive, the average voter would at least have to have heard of the damn thing. Has Eminent Domain ever been brought up as a plank topic at the GOP, Democratic, or Green party conventions?

There would be a strong incentive to staff the commission and write regulations in ways that are broadly acceptable to society.

Much like the precedents which favored the extremely wealthy or office holding elites who owned most of the mills and railroads.

joe, why put in some convoluted legislation and committee when there's a much simpler idea: leave it up to the owners of the properties in question. You could even convolute it and rather than make it plot-by-plot decisions, publish the plan and notify the present owners that X number of lots are considered for a plan and let those owners decide as a group whether to sell or not to sell. Not unlike a condo board. (The states could decide whether it's simple majority, 2/3rds, etc. that push the sales through.) I don't see why someone who lives on the other side of town should have a say.

And what kind of unimaginative cretins work in the average development authority anyway? They come up with a plan, get 80% of the property owners to agree to sell, and then these brilliant planners are completely stumped as to finding ways to develop around the unsold lots? Jeeziz, this happens all the time in private transactions.

cjp | June 28, 2005, 11:11pm | #

Stevo,

congradulations on working two self-antonyms into that finely copy-edited reply.

Of course, the only reason their self-antonyms is do to misuse. Which begs the question: does a word/phrase have any objective meaning, or is it's meaning merely decided by popular fiat? I suppose it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is...

Rick Barton | June 28, 2005, 11:17pm | #

Yes! And a practical, real world way to fight this outrage is to vote for tax and spending limitation initiatives if they come up in your state so the governments won't have as much money to carry out eminent domain condemnation and purchase proceedings.

db | June 28, 2005, 11:41pm | #

There should be state-level protections as well, but just as we don't let the city fathers of Possumbutt, Louisianna decide how to protect the Bill of Rights rights of the residents of their black slum, we also need the feds to have a mechanism to protect the rights of property owners. And it would foster good planning practice, too

joe,

I had an argument earlier this year with a guy from Boston (a Ph D. candidate no less), who could not defend against my argument that the South was more successfully integrated than the North...

So explain to me how, in the name of all that is tolerant, people in the Northeast, who are subject to the de facto segregation of living in the "best areas" there, are better integrated, and live on better day-to-day terms with minorities, than people from the deepest, most segregated areas of the South.

You are all Provincials, in the worst sense of the word.

There are good reasons that Canadians the negative connotations of the word "provincial."

Adam | June 28, 2005, 11:55pm | #

I suppose the Free State Project has fifty people (by my rough survey of the "WE MOVED!" section of their website) strategically situated to capitalize on it. Early results from freestateproject.org don't seem encouraging that they're jumping on this and riding it for the mileage that they could get out of it. Who knows, maybe something good will come of it.

kevrob | June 29, 2005, 12:04am | #

...do to misuse. - cjb

Surely, you meant to type due.

Kevin

cjp | June 29, 2005, 12:26am | #

Kevrob: zoom! There it goes, right over your head :)

Re-read closer; you may find more...

Deus ex Machina | June 29, 2005, 12:39am | #

Quick aside here...

What's with the Reason thong being described as "... designed to fit juniors" and "... sizes run small"? I didn't realize that the 12-year-old rebellious schoolgirl demographic was a hotbed of libertarian activity?

I want a MAN thong! | June 29, 2005, 1:29am | #

I was going to say, they do at least offer the Reason thong.

I assume this is intended for female wear, right? Please don't tell me that men wear those.

This is an outrage! Where the hell are the Reason banana hammocks?!?!

speedwell | June 29, 2005, 8:31am | #

I'm a free-stater living (currently) in Texas, and a co-worker approached me yesterday afternoon about this. Basically I think it's a cute stunt but will never fly. Why?

1) Freestar Media and its CEO Logan Clements are not in the real estate development business. This is not a game for amateurs, I assure you--I worked in commercial real estate for four years and it is practically impossible to get things done in the industry unless you have experience, credentials, and PULL. What is their business plan, other than an in-your-face John Galt moment in the spotlight? Will the hotel make money? (Businesses that are not set up with a primary purpose of turning a profit are immoral.)
2) The Towne of Weare needs to have some tangible evidence that this is more than a joke. No Board member can afford to allow his reputation to be at stake, or to get on the bad side of a Supreme Court justice, unless the benefits to him from the project are significantly greater than those two major downsides.
3) Do the Cilley Road homeowners support this effort? My guess is that they're a pretty upscale neighborhood, not zoned for commercial development (if zoning applies in NH as I guess it does). What is this going to do to their property values, even assuming a market like we've had the last several years? My guess is that they'll do all they can to oppose such a thing, and they'll be listened to.
4) The opinion in Kelo vs. New London did not hold that the local government must award the property to a developer, only that it may do so. Remember that the Poletown decision was overturned last year. This is meaningful. Not all eminent domain land grabs are going to be held to be legal even under Kelo.
5) That said, the Freestar Media plan is just wrong. It is obviously a bad-faith attempt to defraud Souter of his property in retaliation for his vote. In this country, we do not intimidate or punish judges personally for doing their job, no matter how much we disagree with them. Nothing Souter did is contrary to established law. Interpretation of the Constitution is the responsibility of the Supreme Court. The people may now use the built-in cheks and balances to either attempt to bring a new case hoping that the SCOTUS will overturn Kelo, or induce Congress to pass a Constitutional amendment that is more in conformance to popular opinion, or pass laws at the state and local level that are less permissive than the Kelo ruling. Probably all three will happen.

I might be wrong about some of this, but I am surely not wrong about all of it. IANAL.

joe | June 29, 2005, 9:42am | #

All you liberty lovers might want to look up the concept of "checks and balances." Using one branch or level of government to keep other branches or levels in line is the fundamental principle undergirding our system of government.

It's also pretty shallow to decide that the idea can't possibly have any merit, because the name kinda sorta reminds you of something you read in a sci-fi book.

Russ D, I realize you would like to have no eminent domain takings. Me, I'd like a have a majic pony that shits Hershey's kisses. It's time to get off the high horse and think about what can actually be done about the problem.

db, I can buy the premise that the most successfully integrated areas of the country in 2005 are in the South. There are a lot of reasons for this, but one of them would have to be the decades of federal pressure that has been concentrated there. The best-integrated, most racially just areas of the country were most certainly not located in the South in 1955.

R C Dean | June 29, 2005, 9:52am | #

The best-integrated, most racially just areas of the country were most certainly not located in the South in 1955.

I wouldn't be shocked to discover that they were. Many Southerners had worked out reasonably good relations within their communities by 1955.

Its no accident that Boston is the byword for violent reaction to school busing: the North was just as de facto segregated as the South, and perhaps more successful at walling off their black communities from day-to-day interaction with the white communities. When bussing broke down those walls, Boston blew up, but Atlanta didn't. Curious, no?

joe | June 29, 2005, 9:54am | #

fyodor, courts are not the only branch of government that is responsible for protecting rights. The courts are where individuals go for redress when their rights have been, or are about to be, violated. However, it is common practice for one branch or office of government to be charged with checking other branches, in order to make sure they aren't violating anyone's rights.

If you rely on the courts, you are establishing a system in which the individual landowner has to prove that his rights have been violated. A commission, on the other hand, can put the onus on the governments to prove that their plans pass muster. In addition, the courts have to wait until an actual violation occurs before redressing it, while an administrative commission, with review power over government actions, can nip bad actions in the bud.

joe | June 29, 2005, 9:59am | #

RC, good points. The southern system of race relations, going back to slavery days, was one in which the physical presence of black people in white areas was a normal part of life, while in many northern areas, the races lived in different communities. The South "needed" to have "White Only" signs on its bathrooms because there actually were white people and black people walking down the same streets and going into the same stores.

Nonetheless, this physical proximity should not be conflacted with racial justice. You could say your neighborhood is integrated if all of the homeowners are white, and have live-in black domestic help, but it's not going to get an invite to the NAACP Awards.

joe | June 29, 2005, 10:00am | #

That's right, "conflacted." You got a problem with "conflacted?" Yeah, well, flact you, buddy.

speedwell | June 29, 2005, 10:32am | #

Joe, I specifically mentioned checks and balances in the post that appear immediately above the one where you bitch that noone looked it up. :)

joe | June 29, 2005, 10:49am | #

Indeed you did.

Russ D | June 29, 2005, 10:50am | #

joe,

I don't know how you can assume I want no ED takings, based on my proposal I'm making it a given! All these ED cases are based on the fact that a few people hold out. Rather than get into the insipid and specious debate about "public use" and "public purpose", let's cut right to the chase and spell out how the process of takings would occur and the possible defenses. We all tend to forget that these high-profile ED cases come right down to the issue of corporate welfare which always gets ignored.

Meanwhile, you are a city planner. You even called the New London situation corrupt yourself. And your solution is to put another level of city planners on top of that!! Talk about a high-horse solution. That ain't checks and balances, that's the fox guarding the hen house.

Vynnie | June 29, 2005, 10:56am | #

At least Joe's got chicken.

http://www.warcraftmovies.com/movieview.php?id=1666

joe | June 29, 2005, 11:07am | #

Russ,

If the only city planner you have regular contact with calls New London's plan "corrupt," what makes you so certain that city planners would be unable and unwilling to to the same in an official capacity? Trust me, New London's clearance plan is not what most practicing planners would consider responsible practice.

Anyway, the people on my proposed commission wouldn't have to be city planners. Most people who serve on local planning boards aren't planners.

the regulator | June 29, 2005, 11:20am | #

I can buy the premise that the most successfully integrated areas of the country in 2005 are in the South

uh...Unless things have changed since 2003, the south I lived in (north Florida, Baton Rouge, Houston) is still highly segregated. Much of the segregation centered around economics, but to many people color was still an issue. That said, I think that the way different people dealt with one another was more honest and open, even if it wasn't always positive. When I grew up in NJ, it was much more about maintaining the appearance of acceptance while working to ensure that integration would never happen. Oregon is like that too -- it's a big group hug but please keep the Mexicans out of our whitebread town.

smacky | June 29, 2005, 11:30am | #

What's with the Reason thong being described as "... designed to fit juniors" and "... sizes run small"? I didn't realize that the 12-year-old rebellious schoolgirl demographic was a hotbed of libertarian activity?

This is in consideration of:

1.) Libertarians who are anti-child pornography laws and

2.) Libertarians who are pro- lowering the legal age of consent to 14 and

3.) Libertarians who are anti-fat lawsuits and anti-fat pig Americans.

Am I right or am I right or am I right? :)

CAT_Violations | June 29, 2005, 12:20pm | #

speedwell-

...or to get on the bad side of a Supreme Court justice...

In this country, we do not intimidate or punish judges personally for doing their job, no matter how much we disagree with them.

So in this country it is a bad idea to get on the bad side of Supreme Court justices, presumably because they will abuse their authority to retaliate, persecute, defraud, etc. But on the other hand its not acceptable to use a horrible legal policy that they approved on the judges themselves.

I see, it's all clear now. Why don't we just call them "Dukes", "Barons", "Lord", etc.?

sigmund_fraud | June 29, 2005, 12:26pm | #

Maybe they mentioned the thong size to keep people that shouldn't be wearing a Reason thong, or any thong for that matter, out of them. Perhaps they were worried about a inapropriate thong wearer being declared a "blight" or eyesore and being seized by the municipality under eminent domain.

On the other hand no one mentioned children or child pornography, why are you fixated on them?

speedwell | June 29, 2005, 12:36pm | #

"I see, it's all clear now. Why don't we just call them "Dukes", "Barons", "Lord", etc.?"

Damn good question, actually.

But seriously, libertarians are the LAST people I would have expected to advocate retaliating against sitting judges for the good-faith performance of their duty, to paraphrase the Volokh Conspiracy blog. Heinlein or no Heinlein, aren't free courts supposed to be one of the linchpins of a properly functioning anarchy (or near-anarchy)?

guy in the back row | June 29, 2005, 1:29pm | #

But if the courts are just affirming and extending bad decisions from 70 years ago just so the powers that be are not disrupted, is that considered to be free courts? Seems like their hands are tied by the New Deal and the New Society.

Stevo Darkly | June 29, 2005, 1:48pm | #

I want a MAN thong!

Oh God, MY EYES! MY EYES! MY MIND'S EYES!

smacky | June 29, 2005, 2:05pm | #

On the other hand no one mentioned children or child pornography, why are you fixated on them?

Gee, I dunno, because I'm a child pornographer? (Please interpret this as sarcasm).

"Designed to fit juniors" implies designed to fit older children and junior high schoolers (maybe some high schoolers as well). Also, if you read carefully, someone did mention children (namely: 12-year-old rebellious school girls). No fixations for me, just agreeing with Deus ex Machina that it is indeed a strange marketing demographic. Thanks for the free consulation anyway, Sigmund.

freudian_bureaucrat | June 29, 2005, 4:24pm | #

No fixations for me, just agreeing with Deus ex Machina that it is indeed a strange marketing demographic. Thanks for the free consulation anyway, Sigmund.

smacky-

If that were entirely true you wouldn't be so defensive and overcompensating in your explanation. You seem to be in denial. How long have you had these fixations that you repress so fervently?

I may have to seek judicial intervention for you. Unless you date my college roomate's kid. But if you break up with him all bets are off and I'll see that you are secretly committed to the most abusive facility that employs the most damaging "treatments" I can find. And of course no one will believe someone as "sick" as you.

Cheers

Stevo Darkly | June 29, 2005, 5:48pm | #

freudian bureaucrat --

Interesting. Tell us more. What makes you feel that way?

Also, let's discuss how you feel about your whore mother.

Eric the .5b | June 29, 2005, 6:50pm | #

Corn, anyone?

Eric the .5b | June 29, 2005, 6:52pm | #

What's with the Reason thong being described as "... designed to fit juniors" and "... sizes run small"? I didn't realize that the 12-year-old rebellious schoolgirl demographic was a hotbed of libertarian activity?

Those aren't common sizes offered by CafePress? I had the vague impression you're just paying for a semi-cheap print on a pre-selection of available sizes and items.

Stevo Darkly | June 29, 2005, 6:57pm | #

smacky: I now think Sigmund/bureaucrat is trying to be funny by playing a role, that of the intrusive know-it-all psychobabbling mind-reader wannabe, rather than actually picking on you.

However, let the record show that I did the chivalrous thing and stood up for you. By slipping in a reference to his mother as a whore. Just like Galahad would do.

Eric the .5b | June 30, 2005, 2:43am | #

Here's how it works...[Congress would] empower the National Planning Commission to review all takings cases, or whatever subset they deem worthy of close review, to make sure they are sufficiently protective of due process and equal protection rights...they'd have to draw up a set of standards...that the [land-grabbing] governments' actions have to meet... [T]he Commission gets one member appointed by the president, one by the HUD Sec, one from Commerce, one from Transportation, one from Interior, one from EPA, and one from the Civil Rights Division of Justice.

After thinking about it, I'm going to recant my earlier, flippant remark. Without sarcasm, I think this actually sounds like a decent idea. Considering the frenzy of eminent domain use (and more land-grabbing frenzy), I could see worse than a 7-person commission having to approve all of these cases. Even if the commission were a virtual rubber-stamp (and I have to admit, I'd expect it to be pretty close to one once public attention drifted away), the delay caused by the backlog would heavily discourage governments from opting for takings.

sadistic freudian bureaucrat | June 30, 2005, 3:02am | #

smacky: I now think Sigmund/bureaucrat is trying to be funny by playing a role, that of the intrusive know-it-all psychobabbling mind-reader wannabe, rather than actually picking on you.

That's about right. Unless smacky is actually someone who did something mean to me in real life, then she's not very nice.

However, let the record show that I did the chivalrous thing and stood up for you. By slipping in a reference to his mother as a whore. Just like Galahad would do.

And people say chivalry is dead. I can't comment on the accuracy of your accusation, since I neither know nor care about my mother's sex life. She is quite a backstabber, however. Thanks for your gallantry.

Russ D | June 30, 2005, 11:13am | #

Eric,

What do you think is more likely to happen: a) governments will reduce their planning because their ideas can't meet the commission's standards; or b) governments will draw up their plans to comply with the commission's standards from outset thereby quickening the condemnations because the property owner can't fight the ED taking on a standards basis.

Eric the .5b | July 1, 2005, 3:37pm | #

Both, Russ. The commission would still have to review the plans to confirm that they met the standards. In other words, they'd have to read them (or at least wait long enough to seem like they did) before rubber-stamping them. Hence, a delaying mechanism.