Souter plan draws smirks, smiles in Weare

[kskiska]

WEARE — Even as late as yesterday afternoon, residents here were scratching their heads over the commotion a one-page fax from thousands of miles away had caused Tuesday.

"We're trying to collect taxes, not answering phones," said town clerk Evelyn Connor about what she said was a distraction from today's tax collection deadline. By yesterday afternoon, at least 50 different media outlets had called looking for comment. "We're too busy for this," she said, shaking her head.

(snip)

The letter, sent by Logan Darrow Clements in California, outlined his intention to build a hotel on the residence of Supreme Court Justice David Souter, who lives on the edge of town in a brown, wood-frame farmhouse.

(snip)

Though Clements contends that "this is not a prank," some were not so sure about the written proposal, which included no street address.

Emily Seddon, a 23-year-old clerk at the Country Three Corners convenience store, believed it was a joke, but said it wasn't funny.

"It's a horrible idea," she said. "'That's a very historic part of Weare."

more…
http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=57048

[AllyCat]

1. Clearly, Miss Seddon has not read the SC decision

Historic or not, if it increases the tax base and has the potential for providing jobs, out with the current residents!!

[alfredo]

5. Remember John Lennon said in his song "working Class Hero"

"But you're still fucking peasants as far as I can see."

why buy a house when you know it can be taken out from under you. Forget about resettling the downtown. that can be very risky now.

[onenote]

12. clearly you haven't read the decision either

First, a local government is under absolutely no obligation to exercise its eminent domain powers in any situation, let alone because some yahoo wants them to.

Second, the law remains clear,even after the court's decision, that eminent domain cannot be used for the purpose of giving a pre-selected private entity property taken from another private owner.

onenote

[AllyCat]

16. Not under obligation, but oh, think of the cash!!

No, the local gov't doesn't HAVE to do it, but they sure can if they want, I mean, decide it would be for the public good.

Do I really think this hotel bit on Souter's land is going to happen? No. But it's the principal of the thing. And it's damn funny.

And it seemed the point of the entire case was to determine if people's land could be bought and sold to another (private) entity if it helped the "public good" as in more low-wage jobs with no bennies. That is supposedly the point of eminent domain...at least, in the Old Way, it was to the public (as in local gov't.)

[onenote]

17. "Old Way" hasn't been that way for a long time

Over 20 years ago, in the Midkiff case (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=467&invol=229), the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the use of eminent domain by the State of Hawaii to transfer ownership of privately owned property directly from its current owners to individuals who were leasing the property. The stated "public use" was that a handful of families owned most of the private property in the state and it was deemed to benefit the public to break up these "oligopolies" in order to address inflated property prices and some unspecified injury to the "public tranquility and welfare". Now, personally, I don't have a problem with what essentially was a redistribution of the wealth scheme. But the fact is that the recently decided case out of Connecticut really didn't break new ground. As the Court said in Midkiff: the exercise of eminent domain is constitutional when it is "rationally related to a conceivable public purpose." Hard to argue that revitalizing an area that has double the unemployment of the rest of the state isn't a "conceivable public purpose."

onenote

[natrat]

2. another stupid hillbilly doesn't see what's being lost

[Bluerthanblue]

8. uh, i beg to differ, and am offended

by your characterization of my 'neighbors'-

While i completely agree that the govenment should NOT be able to 'take your land' for any 'private' but tax increasing scheme....-
the reality is that this HAS and IS happening in many states, (other than N.L. Connecticut).

Why was Justice Souter 'singled out' among those who voted in the majority? (which is a GREAT disapointment to me, i believed better of him) Because, i believe the 'Free-stateers' have chosen NH as thier 'target state'- and the person who is behind all this is a 'freestater' who plans on moving here eventually- why? because we have no state income or sales tax,- we're rural, and we are vunerable-

We AREN'T abunch of stupid 'hillbillies'- and believe me, we DO know what is being lost- every single day, i see what is being lost- and i wish like HELL we would institute a sales AND income tax, to keep some of the rich, arrogant, and lazy people who come here for the financial benefits from using my home state as thier little 'tax-free' haven.

Our state is struggling to 'make it'- it may 'look' good from the outside, but for those of us with modest, (and less than modest) means, who live in homes that have been in the family for generations, who are being forced to 'sell out' because we can't afford the PROPERTY taxes- while those with big money come in and buy up our fields and forests and build thier McMansions while we struggle to just make do, it pisses THIS 'hillbilly' off-

And while i may not be the most intelligent of people, and my spelling and communication skills may be less than brilliant, i'm not 'stupid' nor are most of my fellow New Hampshirites- we voted BLUE much to my great delight! -

sorry to rant, i'm just tired of being shat on by people who think because we are 'country' people, we are stupid.

(now, the Union Leader, THAT's a rather 'stupid' paper)

[insane_cratic_gal]

13. As a NH Yank.. thank you

I'm from Weare, I grew up there. I'll be the first to admit it is a bit hickish. However, these are salt of the earth folks. Blue collar workers, who have lived in the area for generations.

Is it true Emily isn't aware of the Supreme Court ruling? Yes. Did you notice her initial reaction? The idea of taking someone land, no matter the circumstances, is WRONG.

But thank you Blue for pointing out we ain't all dumb hillbillies and resent being called as such.

[Bluerthanblue]

14. hey-

you're quite welcome-

i'm not sure Emily wasn't aware of the ruling,- (geez, no one around here can help but miss it) but was refering more to the silly notion of putting up a hotel there- especially with the "names" that were chosen to push home the point- that it was a "joke", i'd have responded the same way- that the property is historic (not because it's Souters, but because it's OLD- and NH is trying hard to preserve historic homes) shouldn't matter- but i'll bet, if a case could have been made for the historical value of the homes in New London Conn, they might never have had to go to the SC-

i agree the ruling is WRONG- and i've never supported 'emininent domain' even when it was for 'the public good'- we wouldn't have Seabrook, or many of the highways we have, but we'd be FAR better off-

Alot of people have been harmed by eminent domain- look into what they are trying to do to the Mt.Sunapee area, and in light of this SC decision, it will likely go through, even though the Gov. is against it-

[FourStarDemocrat]

3. This is a great story! Clements shows a lot of creativity there. n/t

[Bluerthanblue]

9. he also showed stupidity... as

Chip Meaney says in another article, = Mr. Clements can't ask for building permits for land he DOESN'T OWN-

Creative? no- making a point? YES- and a point i personally agree with, however, i also believe that Justice Souter ruled as he did because it's a 'states rights' issue- NOT because he believes it is 'right'-

i read the 'brief' from the SC he makes no comment- How about the properties for all the other Justices? let's target all of them equally shall we???

[indepat]

4. What does being historic have to do with it when the tax base can be

increased? On with the project.

[Miss Chybil]

11. Yes, New London, Connecticutt is pretty "historical," too. Get the

bulldozers! This guy in CA needs more money and Souter's town could use the taxes for say, political campaigns.

[tubbacheez]

6. The deeper implication is: This decision could depress housing prices

Much depends on how the municipalities exercise their newfound (and unprecedented) powers.

If government, by action or even rumor, creates the public impression that attractive properties can simply be confiscated with merely taxable value as compensation, the incentive to own property goes down dramatically.

Investors expect a rate of return on property, typically in the form of appreciated market value. If government can bypass the free market and give itself a discount (by paying only taxable value instead of open bidding), why bother to invest in such a property at all?

Renting, by comparison, looks far more predictable and stable. And the savings from not having to pay property tax can be invested elsewhere.

Housing prices, bubble or no, would feel a heavy downward pressure as a result of fewer investors willing to take the newly added risk.






And after a few years of this policy, there's an even bigger fuss coming. New businesses can continually ask the government to take land away from existing businesses, with the reasoning that the new business will generate even higher taxes.

Now government has taken on the quirky role of judging the merits of business plans competing for the same land. Another chunk of the free market goes bye-bye.

If land were simply sold according to supply and demand, the market value of the land contributes strongly to the practicality of any business plan.

But now that government is essentially setting the prices artificially, officials now must arbitrate who gets what... and for how much.

Taken to its logical extension, this policy will destroy a couple centuries of property law and restore the governmental land-granting commonplace in colonial times and earlier.




Again, much depends on how the municipalities exercise their newfound powers.

[northzax]

7. and municipalities that abuse it

will be hurt by it. I guess we might end up with a soviet style collective, where the government owns all property and hands it out to a select few, but I really doubt it. Some cities will do it well, like some cities do planning and transit well. others will abuse it, and watch property values and political capital plummet. Those cities will no continue to get investment dollars, and will fail.

[tubbacheez]

10. I'm having a hard time seeing a case of good usage of this policy.

Seriously, I'm trying to imagine a case where a municipality could use this power in a non-abusive way. And I'm coming up blank.

If a city uses this power at all, it will seize land from an existing owner, give him/her a sum that is less than full market value, and then sell the land to a new owner for less than full market value.

The whole reason the new owner asked the city to get involved was because he/she wasn't willing to pay full market value for the property. Full market value would be the price the original owner is willing to sell at.

This is economically equivalent to a government tax upon the existing owner. Not only must the old owner sell, but he must also receive less than what he would on the free market. Worse, this tax is not uniformly applied. It is only collected when somebody else wants your property.





For the local real estate market in any city that becomes known for using this power, there is a distinct possibility of a viscious cycle forming.

The risk of government seizure will drive away investors, and property prices level off or even drop. If the population remains stable, rental prices will increase due to increased demand.

But for property owners, rent income is taxed by income tax, which mostly goes to the IRS. Property taxes, which mostly stay local, parallel property values and will stay even or go down.

Thus, the city may actually collect LESS in total tax money than before they began seizing property. The gains in property tax from one address might not be enough to offset the losses in property tax from other local addresses.

If the city got into this financial bind, it would be tempted by the promises of even more new owners coming in and asking for seizures of property. This becomes a self-fueling viscious cycle.



Maybe other circumstances can help the situation, but even if so, I think any lucky successes will happen in spite of this policy, not because of it.

[pilgrimsoul]

15. I'm beginning to wonder

if this SC decision isn't what will finally pop the U.S. real estate bubble. Only time will tell.

[tubbacheez]

19. Personally, I don't think a nationwide bubble exists.

I think certain regions or even certain blocks of zip codes have bubbles, some of them perhaps blatantly. But I don't think the entire nation is in for a uniform correction in prices.



But regardless of whether a bubble is present or not in a given area, I think this policy would press property prices significantly lower than they otherwise would be.

[LiberallyInclined]

20. I agree...

as long as the population continues to increase, so will real estate prices.

[natrat]

18. ah yes the constitution, might as w ell wipe your ass with it