At 03:49 PM 6/30/05 -0700, you wrote:
>Probably won't get anywhere with this, but an
>interesting effort.
>
>http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050629/REPOSITOR
Y/506290321/1031
>Article published Jun 29, 2005
>Weare
> 'Hotel' targets Souter's home Property rights
>advocates make protest personal
>By MEG HECKMAN
>Monitor staff
>
>
>A letter that emerged yesterday from the fax machine
>in the Weare Town Hall has thrust Supreme Court
>Justice David Souter's beloved farmhouse into a
>national debate over property rights.
>
>Souter, a longtime Weare resident, joined in a court
>decision last week that allows governments to seize
>private property from one owner and turn it over to
>another if doing so would benefit a community. Now, an
>outraged Californian wants to test the ruling - by
>asking Weare's selectmen to let him replace Souter's
>farm with a posh hotel.
<snip>
>"Am I taking this seriously? But of course," said
>Meany, who handles building requests. "In lieu of the
>recent Supreme Court decision, I would imagine that
>some people are pretty much upset. If it is their
>right to pursue this type of end, then by all means
>let the process begin. . . . I have to allow the law
>to take its course."
This is wonderfully ironic! I hope that the Supreme Court realizes how
unjust their decision was.