Talk:Lost Liberty Hotel

(N)POV issues

I have revised the text regarding the Clements misreading of the Kelo majority opinion. I have removed the word "evident," although it think it entirely accurate. (In fact, I think the word "deliberate" would be even more appropriate, given the texts involved.) The second paragraph of the Clements press release is quite explicit in declaring that the Kelo majority had decided the one-to-one transfer issue, despite the explicit language of the Kelo majority that it had not addressed that issue.

In any event, the revision attributes the technical question of the terms of the Kelo decision to the broader policy question concerning the merits of the Clements proposal. This, I would say, is clearly incorrect. It is perfectly possible to believe that Clements was incorrect in declaring that Kelo sanctioned a taking of the kind he proposed and at the same time believe that his proposal should be supported as a "test case" to force the unresolved issue into the court system or promote public debate.

Finally, I think that the recently added paragraph declaring that "Clement is entirely serious" raises even greater (N)POV issues, and will shortly delete it myself unless a serious argument can be made. Whoever inserted the language cannot verify Clements' actual motives, and this would hardly be the first case of a political partisan's extensive promotion of a scheme knowing full well it would never come about. I believe the lack of skepticism in the entry regarding Clements' motives, and the failure to present the view that the proposal is simply a provocative student, is itself an (N)POV failure, and I hope others will resolve that problem while I limit my own comments to more technical matters. Judge Magney 18:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• If you think it isn't factual, add content (with references) saying that it isn't factual. The paragraph and link that I added is straight from their official website (but paraphrased so that it isn't copyvio). Merely deleting a point of view from an article doesn't make it NPOV; the goal of NPOV is to present all (realistic) sides to an argument: "Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present." Hope this helps. --Idont Havaname 19:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

I would think the point self-evident. The article accepts Clements' representations of his intent on faith, and much of its text adopts his at best dubious, and in some aspects technically inaccurate, reading of Kelo. That the proposal is considered no more than a publicity stunt by many is undenied, but the article is based on the POV position that the seriousness of the underlying proposal is undisputed. Judge Magney 04:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll say the article has a dispute. Let's keep the tag on until you stop making the claim that the proposal is based on a misreading of the decision. That is your opinion, not fact. Rhobite 04:08, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

This is not a question of interpretation or opinion. The majority opinion in Kelo states explicitly that it is not deciding the question of whether the eminent domain power allows the taking of property from one owner, and transfer to a different owner, without a development plan, simply to increase property tax revenue. The text is explicit: "It is further argued that without a bright-line rule nothing would stop a city from transferring citizen A's property to citizen B for the sole reason that citizen B will put the property to a more productive use and thus pay more taxes. Such a one-to-one transfer of property, executed outside the confines of an integrated development plan, is not presented in this case. . . . [T]he hypothetical cases posited by petitioners can be confronted if and when they arise."

Compare it to the text in the Clements press release: "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."

Because the Court's ruling is framed in these terms, state courts and lower courts are free to consider the issue presented de novo; it has been left open, and no constitutional precedent on the specific issue has been established.

As a technical matter, the scope of the Court's ruling is plainly established. It is no more accurate to present the Clements position as a plausible interpretation of the Court's ruling than to say, for example, that the Court found the Grokster defendants liable (or, worse, "guilty").

And the alternative language is certainly no less POV. The claim that one's technical reading of the Kelo opinion reflects one's opinion of the merits of the Clements proposal is no more accurate than the claim that one's opinion of the merits of Swift's "Modest Proposal" reflects one's opinion on cannibalism.

Judge Magney 15:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Magney, are you willing to provide more information (via talk or reference) on the development plan requirement? This is right at the core of the public reaction to Kelo and I believe its significance deserves treatment here. --OtisTDog 05:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

=> I'm coming to this a bit late - January 03, 2006 to be precise - but I have... some questions: First off, am I the only one here who has a problem with the blatant slam of Clements and the LLH contained in the phrase "Many observers have viewed the hotel proposal as no more than a publicity stunt"? Oddly enough, the section in which that comical bias appears isn't open for editing, which means it's apparently the "official" entry by Wikipedia's webmasters themselves, which prompts another question: Does Wikipedia consider itself to be a serious online encyclopedia with some semblance of sober grounding in fact, or is it merely the Internet equivalent of a wall of graffiti?

Here's a suggestion for a truly "neutral" statement: "Some opponents have characterized the hotel proposal as no more than a publicity stunt; others hail it as a vital battleground for an end to eminent domain abuse."

There - was that so hard?

Again: Is Wikipedia to be taken seriously as an online encylopedia, or is it just a toilet partition scribbled with graffiti? If it can't handle neutrality in an entry with some moderate controversy attached to it, then Wikipedia might just as well bill itself as a gigantic, free-for-all public blog.

<***>

Hoffman and Volokh "Criticisms"

Following text does not belong:

Professor David Hoffman argued that the claim by Clements was frivolous given the intent of Kelo and wrote that:

this kind of retaliation against a Justice who merely wrote voted for a majority opinion (applying a century of solid precedent) through use of a frivolous land claim strikes at the heart of our government of ordered liberty. It is, I think, the same as if a mugger went to Justice Scalia on the street and asked for his wallet, on the ground that the Justice has, through his jurisprudence, eroded the protection against seizure on the thoroughfare. He further speculated that Clements may have acted illegally under federal or state law if his actions amount to threatening a judge, though he concluded that criminal prosecution was unlikely.[5] Professor Eugene Volokh believes that Clements' actions are "simply a request to a government body to do something that it has absolutely no interest in doing," which is political speech protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Volokh opposes the taking of Souter's home on the grounds that "we shouldn't seriously want government agencies to retaliate against government officials by seizing their property," but sees little harm in the proposal itself.[6]

Hoffman's "argument" is pure emotional appeal designed to characterize the approval of the hotel as an act of theft. It certainly does not belong in this article when such meticulous care has gone into trimming it down to immediately relevant facts.

Volokh's beliefs about the proposer's motives are also not relevant. They are not likely to be the result of an interview, and they have no bearing on the hotel's inception, approval, legality, etc.

I find it quite ironic that this anon is objecting to reporting criticism of Clements's publicity stunt. Wikipedia policy is to report notable opinions (without adopting them). If that weren't the case, this whole article would've been deleted. The "Lost Liberty Hotel" will never be built, and even if it were built, we don't include articles on every hotel in the world. Its only claim to inclusion is that Clements's press release was judged to be a notable criticism of Kelo. To say that Kelo was rightly decided would not be a basis for removing this article, just because we disagree with Clements's opinion. Similarly, to disparage Hoffman's argument as "pure emotional appeal" is not a basis for suppressing it, even if you agree with that characterization (which I don't). Whether an opinion is reported in Wikipedia doesn't depend on whether the editors, in their supreme wisdom, decide that the opinion is correct. Volokh's comments don't concern Clements's actual motives, but rather are the standard kind of analysis that lawyers do every day, that of thinking about the arguments that could be made for or against any particular position. The statements by Hoffman and Volokh are not presented as fact, but are properly attributed to their sources. Their inclusion is completely appropriate. JamesMLane 17:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Neither Hoffman's nor Volokh's comment counts as "analysis". This is what I was driving at by characterizing it as an emotional appeal. They are removed.

Given that Hoffman and Volokh disagree, it's hard to believe that the article is unbalanced by including both. Also, you may want to read our policy on reverting articles: if you revert again today (4 times in 24 hours), you will be blocked from editing. Have a good day, Dave (talk) 21:23, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Not a matter of balance, Harry (why did you sign as "Dave"?). A matter of relevance. If you look at the history of the article there has been a steady trimming of any pro-hotel rhetoric. This is a trimming of anti-hotel rhetoric. Thanks for the pointers to policy pages; I appreciate the information.

I made some of the edits that you're probably characterizing as "trimming of ... pro-hotel rhetoric". What I did was to trim passages in which the Wikipedia article took a position on one side (Clements's side) of a disputed issue. The pro-hotel POV has been left in the article, but it's reported, not asserted, in that it's properly attributed to Clements. That's why the attribution of these opinions to Hoffman and Volokh is important. The report of their properly attributed opinions is encyclopedic. JamesMLane 00:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the anon that started all of this. (UPDATE: I am the anon that started all this. I apologize for this act of deception, which I realize was inappropriate.) The first comment in the criticism section actually has relevance to the intent of the proposal and the nature of the Supreme Court decision that "inspired" it. The other two comments are just fluff that do not address the essential facts and only color a reader's perception. OtisTDog 13:26, August 6, 2005 (UTC) Update: JudgeMagney reverted with no comments here. I have remodified the article in segments indicating specific reasons for deleting each piece. The remaining portions of the two original comments are somewhat defensible as is. OtisTDog 18:10, August 5, 2005 (UTC) Update: Date of comment changed, as it was incorrect.

I reverted for the reasons stated in the my edit summary, which were perfectly straightforward. Please do not mischaracterize my actions with such strategic omissions. I am also adding back sections of the text you removed, since you removed all explanations of commentary which criticized Clements but left text which was more supportive. Judge Magney 21:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Reverted to more neutral and objective version. As this article is about the proposal and not Clements, the edits are valid. If you wish to remove the commentary section, that's also valid. Do we need to go to some sort of arbitration on this? OtisTDog 21:46 August 5, 2005

Wikipedia has developed methods for dealing with such disputes -- see Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Your request for mediation was, in my opinion, premature. I suggest that you withdraw it. The discussion on this page hasn't been going on for very long. JamesMLane 00:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I am attempting to engage those methods, as this seems to have become an "edit war" as described on the dispute resolution page, and the discussion, such as it is, has not been helpful in resolving it. In my opinion, non-essential commentary -- that not addressing the factual or legal basis of the proposal -- belongs outside this article. Leaving summaries of the essential points (i.e. Hoffman's claim of frivolity and Volokh's categorization as political speech rather than a commercial venture) is tolerable; interested readers can follow the handy link for an in-depth exploration of those people's opinions, speculation, etc. Reverted.OtisTDog 00:36 August 6, 2005 (UTC)

The only reason that an imaginary hotel became prominent enough to have an article is that Clements's press release was a way of expressing an opinion. It's not like the Hoffman and Volokh passages are crowding out discussion of the hotel's architecture or labor policies or whatever. There's nothing about this "hotel" to discuss except the opinion-related matters. Quoting notable opinions about a controversial subject is something that we do all the time. I realize you haven't been here long. Why don't you take a look at other articles on controversial subjects? You'll see that many of them include criticisms, whether from the left or the right or nonpolitical. JamesMLane 02:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Given the existing Board of Selectman's unanimous disapproval of the plan, calling it an "imaginary hotel" does not seem excessive. Perhaps the article title should be changed to reflect that it is a proposal? The Hoffman comment serves only to misinform the reader: The proposal would make use of eminent domain, which by definition is not theft, therefore the comparison to a mugging is not educational unless the goal is to characterize all use of eminent domain as theft. In addition, the proposal in no way aims to change our government -- it is not a proposal to harm Justice Souter, to dismiss him as a Supreme Court Justice, alter the takings clause in the Constitution, or anything of the sort. Thus, the bit about striking at the heart of government is also misinforming. Even the classification of Professor Hoffman's comment as "notable" is generous, as there is no evidence of any prominence on his part (a Google check of links to the top 10 pages on his site shows only two external links). Unless you can speak to any of these points, I really don't understand your attachment to that passage. Anyone else have anything to add that I'm missing? I'm reverting it again. OtisTDog 20:17 August 6, 2005 (UTC)

JamesMLane, I've attempted to lay out the reasoning behind the changes I've made. You have done nothing to contest, refute, or even answer them. You've said nothing that offers positive academic reasons to include the questioned material. I am in complete agreement with you that actual criticism (as opposed to smearing) of the proposal belongs in the article -- thus I've made no attempt to change either the header's estimate of its probable completion or the very informative analysis of the actual impact of the Kelo decision on eminent domain law; I even elevated it its own category so the importance of that point will not be overlooked by the reader. Having read the policy pages you directed me to (and which, as a newcomer, I thank you for), I am calling a short unilateral truce as a positive step towards resolution of this issue -- even though it pains me to leave Hoffman's commentary in its current, misinforming state. I'm asking you kindly to reply to the points above before I take the matter up again. As you seem to examine this article on a frequent basis, I'm sure 24 hours will be sufficient for the purpose. I welcome comments from any of the other users contesting this in the same vein. --OtisTDog 05:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, The Lost Liberty Hotel is a dead proposal at this juncture. Having the commentary section at all is like beating a dead horse. Where should the "Notable Commentary" end? It's been mentioned in numerous publications, editorials, legal commentaries, and talk show perspectives in both a positive and negative light. I would prefer the whole thing be removed. But if it's not, I'd like to see it shortened to not mentioning anyone in particular but just stating the different positions that have been specualted such as legal v. First Amendment, harrasment, Whether or not it meats the NH standard for emminent domain, etc. Instead of having a pissing match between legal and academic commentators.

I have explained that we do not suppress criticism on the basis of whether it's well-reasoned or not. You just keep arguing your reasons for disagreeing with Hoffman ("The Hoffman comment serves only to misinform the reader...."). Please understand: That you think the Hoffman comment is "misinformation" is irrelevant. JamesMLane 04:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, on that I just simply disagree. The structure of the system makes my editing as relevant as yours. The entire NPOV guideline points to getting rid of misinformative rhetoric whenever possible. I really don't think it counts as "supressing" the comment when the link is right there and all relevant (neutrally-phrased) information is in the reference. --OtisTDog 04:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Punishing public officials is a right

After all, mandamus is a well recognised legal process of holding public officials personally liable for them not doing their jobs as dictated by law. If a judge issues a mandamus order in response to a mandamus petition, and the official does not comply, they can be held personally liable, up to and including forfeiture of their personal assets. Public officials have lost their homes and other assets under this process, so the claim by some that public officials should be immune to legal action in punishment of their injudicious actions, is entirely unsupported by legal history.

Commentary Section

This is rediculous. The entire commentary section is currently nothing more than a POV fight. I find the entire section unnessary, having peoples opinions on a subject, is by it's nature POV and inflamitory. The section should be removed. Wynler 21:28:34, 2005-08-06 (UTC)

Thank you! I agree that the very best article would not include that section, but I am sympathetic to the desire to point to relevant political commentary, so long as having the pointer/reference doesn't involve dragging uninformative, misinformative, or irrelevant text along with it. The purpose of a link, after all, is to allow the reader to travel to the document being referenced. --OtisTDog 22:52, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I have deleted the two additions to the commentary section as being neither notable nor substantive. Neither actually adds to the substantive discussion of whatever issues are involved; one came from a moderately tongue-in-cheek editorial piece in a relatively obscure newspaper, the other from a fringe advocacy publication whose notion of, for example, important alternatives to consider in energy policy omits the promotion of energy/fossil fuel conservation. Judge Magney 18:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Judge Magney, I'm looking forward to hearing your explanation of why the comment of an unknown assistant professor at Temple Law is any more substantive or notable than the ones I placed. --12.208.99.147 20:24, 7 August 2005 (UTC) Update: This comment was mine -- forgot to log in. --OtisTDog 20:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The free market of ideas has determined Hoffman's comments much more notable than either of the sources you added; a simple google search indicates that Burnett's opinion has been cited online only once, in the article you excerpted, while Hoffman's comments are discussed and debated repeatedly. Q.E.D. As for substance, Hoffman discusses the issues involved; the "commentaries" you cite are simply a conclusory statement (Burnett) or a misleadingly excerpted piece. Judge Magney 00:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Magney: You're going to have to back up the claim of the value of Hoffman's comments; you saw the results of my Google scan above, and I don't think he has anything like the prominence of an elected official or a nationally-famous blogger. I read the whole Burnett piece and picked out his comment because he's a law professor. (UPDATE: This is not true. To my knowledge, Burnett is not a law professor. Sorry for the confusion!) The Missoulian quote is a simple declarative that in no way asks for a stretch of the imagination. Is the game here that YOU get to decide what's notable/prominent/balanced? --OtisTDog 04:09, 8 August 2005 (UTC) UPDATE: Also, the Hoffman quote absolutely does NOT discuss the issues involved -- that's my entire objection. I repeat my question: Can taking Justice Souter's home via eminent domain be legitimately characterized as theft when eminent domain takings are by definition not theft? And given that the hotel proposal makes no threat to Souter's person nor asks for any change whatsoever to government structure or function, how can you defend the blustery "strikes at the heart of our government of ordered liberty" bit? --OtisTDog 04:13, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

If your argument regarding Hoffman is correct, then there is no doubt that the entire text of this page should be deleted and replaced by a short comment that the proposal was a publicity stunt by a fringe politician who deliberately mischaracterized yjr text of the Kelo opinion, as demonstrated by the discrepancy between his announcement and the text of the opinion itself. Notable commentary is notable commentary, and should be reported regardless of one's evaluation of its substantive merits. Your Google scan is nonspecific; a specific scan regarding the Hoffman and Burnett citations shows many online references to the Hoffman comments, virtually none to the Burnett comments. The market has decided the issue. Judge Magney 15:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic about how my argument against the Hoffman quote invalidates the article as a whole, but I'm willing to entertain it if you can explain in more detail. How do you define "notable commentary" other than the circular logic in the above? What objective criteria defines notability, in your view? Also, two important items: First, please see mea culpa above -- I am the anon that started this. Second: My mistake, Burnett is not a law professor. I was thinking of another candidate quote that I did not include. Sorry for confusing things. --OtisTDog 15:58, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

FYI, I didn't find even one link to the Hoffman comment's original page on Google. [1] Can you be more specific about the many online references to it you found in the marketplace of ideas? --OtisTDog 16:10, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Your Google search was malformed; compare the results of "dave hoffman souter kelo" to "sterling burnett souter kelo"; and it is easy to find pages linking to the Hoffman comments among the search results. http://stopthebleating.typepad.com/stop_the_bleating/2005/06/poetic_justice.html Judge Magney 18:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the Google search is fine. I guess it just hasn't indexed that particular page yet. Before posting that, I also checked: "kind of retaliation against a Justice who merely" (no outside results)[2], "strikes at the heart of our government of ordered liberty" (no outside results) [3], and "for a majority opinion (applying a century of solid precedent)" (no results) [4]. Interestingly, there is a result for "same as if a mugger went to Justice Scalia on the street"[5]: The esteemed Professor Volokh disagrees. ("Uh, no.") I still think the whole "Notable Commentary" section should be removed, but while that's being considered, I'm interested to hear more about how you quantify "notable" via objective criteria. Do tell! --OtisTDog 20:57, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

In this case, I used a well-formed Google search, as cited above. You are simply searching for people who favor the same quotations as you do, and the fact that you find virtually none suggests that your focus on lengthy quotations and your opinions regarding which quotations are significant are useless in this context. Judge Magney 13:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Right, so leaving aside the definition of "well-formed" for now, is there a certain number of hits that are required to make it notable, in your mind? The few in support that I've found (so far) are about as relevant as the others in that group, to my mind, which is to say they are only tangentially relevant and of dubious value to this article. I include them simply to show the flaw of your "neutral quoting of non-neutral POV" argument. It's clear they introduce POV indirectly. --OtisTDog 19:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

There is already a Legal Criticism section, so I don't think this section is even needed. Also, is there supposed to be a strike of the word "wrote" in the quote? It was using <strikeout> tags which don't work so I fixed it. --pile0nades^{talk | contribs} 22:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

The strikeout mirrors the form of the text of the quoted blog, so it is necessary. The material was originally part of a more general "Criticism" section, which the editor known as OtisTDog divided into parts. Judge Magney 00:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

On the whole i feel the commentary section is fine. To avoid unnecessary edit wars it would be better to discuss any new commenatry in the disucussion page before adding to the main article. Consensus reached in the discussion page will make all our lives easier. --DuKot 03:52, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

DuKot, thank you very much for responding to my request. I'm all for this approach, but I'm going to have to insist that it go to an actually neutral form while we work out a consensus over here. There is absolutely no way to defend the Hoffman comments in the form that they were before -- they have no value as anything other than inflammatory rhetoric. --OtisTDog 04:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

It's rather strange to object to these comments as "inflammatory rhetoric". The entire "Lost Liberty Hotel" itself is nothing but inflammatory rhetoric. It consists of words in a press release; it has no other existence. That you consider Hoffman's argument weak is irrelevant to its inclusion in this article. JamesMLane 18:36, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. It is an evolving idea that may or may not come to fruition. Six months out, if the press release is all it ever amounted to, I think it would still deserve article status as a political meme. With respect to the Hoffman quote, I'd actually go a little further -- I don't think he's even offering an "argument" in the proper sense of the word. As a lawyer, I'm sure you can appreciate the difference between an argument of law and an ad hominem attack, even if it is presented indirectly. --OtisTDog 18:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Wynler, again I appreciate your feedback from outside this tussle. I note that you reinstated the "threatening a judge"/"criminal prosecution" portion of the Hoffman bloc. My opposition to that is twofold. First, if you take a look at the actual page, Hoffman is speculating here and, by his own analysis, is unable to identify any laws that the proposal might be breaking ("Note: I am not claiming that anyone is guilty of anything.") The point of paraphrasing it that way seems (to me) to be to cast a sort of criminal air about the whole idea. Second, the object of his speculation is not about the relative merits of a possible eminent domain claim, which is the heart of the matter, and which would qualify it for the "Legal Criticism" section in my mind. As such, do you still think it deserves to be categorized in the "legal" group in the pecking order? --OtisTDog 21:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

No problem. The main reason I reinstated, and arranged things in this order was in attempt to sort of have a middle ground on the arguement. There may be a better way to word the paraphrasing (such as saying, Prof. Hoffman speculates... or something); but this way people know that it is part of the criticism without the inflamatory quote, and the reference at the end will allow anyone to seek out more detail. As for the grouping of the pecking order, commentary by Volokh who is more well known in the legal blogging community deserved the higher spot, and I gave Hoffman the "benefit of the doubt" on his standing in the legal debate. Hoping to help form a concensus. :) Wynler 22:56:49, 2005-08-08 (UTC)

Since Volokh's comments were in response to Hoffman, convention calls for Hoffman's to appear first. Judge Magney 13:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. What does convention say about the timeline of the public commentary? If there are no objections, I'll add any further commentary I find in temporal order within the compromise legal/political/media block structure. --OtisTDog 16:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Purpose of Article

Magney, what's going on here? Is this just simple maliciousness on your part, or what? It seems like since the vote to get the article deleted failed you've been intent on systematically biasing article content against both Mr. Clements and the proposal itself. Some of your comments are clearly warranted, while some of them are clearly not. What are you after? For my part, I want an article that clearly illustrates the way the proposal electrified a significant segment of the public, and that clearly indicates ways in which the proposal falls short of legality... WITHOUT smearing proponents or critics. --OtisTDog 18:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Stop posting personal attacks and inflammatory innuendo concerning those who do not share your opinion. And please explain why you want pertinent material excised from the article, in particluar: Clements' failure to submit his proposal to the town's economic development officials, instead faxing inappropriate paperwork to the official responsible for enforcing the fire and building codes; Clements' refusal to submit appropriate paperwork after being contacted, of their own volition, by local officials; and Clements' supporters' inability to gather the handful of signatures required to force the proposal onto an official agenda for consideration. I believe Clements is a con man who is exploiting simplistic, often inaccurate reports of the Kelo decision to feather his own nest, diverting financial and political support from those who are currently actively resisting abusive eminent domain actions. Judge Magney 20:51, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not innuendo: I'm sharing my perception of your goals and asking for your response. The idea is to come to a better understanding so we can end this tug-of-war. RE: Pertinent material -- I don't want it excised; I keep reverting because you keep dragging misinforming rhetoric into the picture with the Hoffman quote. Why don't you try putting some of the new material you referenced (Clement's procedural failures) without bringing back the stuff I'm opposing? I'll do it myself later today if you don't haven't by then. For the record, I'm absolutely not in support of helping Clements get personal publicity here, though obviously he needs to be mentioned in the course of discussing the proposal. I'm also absolutely not in favor of this article providing a misleading reading of Kelo by either overstating or understating its impact. Finally, if you have the time, please do try to specify some objective criteria for notability so we can come to an understanding on that. --OtisTDog 21:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Do not edit out material you do not object to, whether by reversion or otherwsie. You seem adamant on removing the entirety of a user's edit if you disagree with any part of it. That is a bad faith action in violation of applicable guidelines, and a repetition of the action will result in a request for formal sanction, as will any further violation of the 3RR limit. The fact that you strongly disagree with the Hoffman comment is not grounds to remove it, especially since it appears to be one of the more frequently cited/discussed comments regarding the sham proposal. Judge Magney 22:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Magney, that's totally untrue. I have, in fact, taken the time to incorporate significant edits that you have previously made, as well as made good faith efforts to discuss things over here (at least, after my initial bull-in-a-china-shop entrance born of unfamiliarity with the way things are done here). With specific reference to the Hoffman quote, the one piece of text I am inflexible about, I have: 1) clearly stated my specific objections to the text both in edit notes and on talk page, 2) repeatedly asked you to provide some positive academic reason for including it (to which you have not yet answered), and 3) indicated clearly that I am open to your arguments on its potential merit. I've also asked you to define the term "notability" on an objective basis so that I could play by your rules in the commentary section. That's good faith. You trying to throw the Hoffman quote back in with other POV-inserting changes, then complaining here that I'm trying to keep out all of your edits is bad faith. I'm prepared to defend this in the face of administrator attention. Are you? --OtisTDog 23:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

You don't have the right to be inflexible on anything here. And you are the one who said you completely reverted my edit because it contained one comment you didn't like. If you want to argue with yourself, do it privately. Judge Magney 00:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, all I can say about that is its a sword that cuts both ways. Don't you think that it's more reasonable to stop including that quote in your edits given that consensus has not yet been reached? Also, don't you think it's reasonable to answer my repeated questions about why you want to include it, as a step towards resolving the standoff? --OtisTDog 03:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

No, and no. The quotation was an uncontroversial part of the article for quite some time, and yours appeared to be the only objection. The burden of achieving consensus rests with the party/parties seeking change to an established text. And since I have already stating why I oppose deleting it, your repetition of the question is annoyance rather than reasonable inquiry. Judge Magney 21:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way, Magney. The set of interested persons has changed, and thus so has the meaning of consensus. Opposing deletion is not the same as supporting inclusion. You've spent a lot more time avoiding my simple questions about your reasons for wanting to include the Hoffman quote than it would take to answer them honestly. I'm going to keep deleting it until convinced otherwise. Should administrator attention arrive, I hope your failure to answer will be taken as evidence of bad faith. --OtisTDog 21:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

As stated in my initial post on this topic, one of my goals is to shore up the content that has become the "Legal Criticism" section. The anti-proposal contributors seem to believe there's good reason to dismiss its feasibility in the post-Kelo world out of hand, but I'm not convinced. I think that if anyone could do that convincing, it would be an extremely valuable addition to article content. To help tone down the edit war, I'm going to ask for ideas on this to be submitted here first. Can we all agree to that as a positive direction for the article? --OtisTDog 01:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Open Issues

If I were an admin I'd lock this page until a consensus was found...Wynler 21:24:46, 2005-08-09 (UTC)

relevance of "depressed" paragraph

Take it out, is there a discussion elsewhere on this topic? If so link it to the end of the previous paragraphWynler 21:24:46, 2005-08-09 (UTC)

The paragraph is commentary on Kelo itself, and its historical elements are quite inaccurate. The issues are covered at length in the main Kelo article. Judge Magney 23:03, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I restored this section because Magney did not provide any justification for his claim that it was inaccurate. These are the uses most familiar to the public. I did qualify it with the word "largely" to give Magney the benefit of the doubt while I research it. --OtisTDog 03:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree this is commentary on Kelo itself... to an extent. However, I think it's important that the historical summary indicate that it was the change in scope that triggered the public backlash that the Lost Liberty Hotel idea rode upon. The "depressed" area version put in place by Magney does not accurately characterize the fact that this was a novel use of eminent domain, and does not draw a strong enough line between this new use and previous use to condemn "blighted" property. I liked the version before the "depressed" line better. --OtisTDog 23:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Otis may be right here... As far as I can tell, the mentions of the city being "depressed" in the decision seem to be incidental, not a determining factor. Dave (talk) 00:28, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Otis is wrong here. The "depressed area" reference comes directly from the Kelo majority. The majority opinion uses the phrases "economically distressed" and "distressed," which I rendered slightly more vernacular (the same variation was used in the Kennedy concurrence). The idea that Kelo represents a novel use of eminent domain is fundamentally inaccurate; the use is hardly unprecedented; this is simply the first case to reach the Supreme Court (probably because the Kelo parties were the first to secure financial support for such an appeal). Judge Magney 00:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

It's mentioned in passing, as far as I can tell (I'll admit I've only read commentary and excerpts). Can you find a line in the decision that says depression is a necessary condition for this use of eminent domain? Dave (talk)

No. The majority rules not that depression/distress is necessary to meet the "public use" standard, but that it is sufficient to meet it. It leaves open the question of a lesser standard, since no case involving one (or a claim of one) has been brought. The Court accepts the purpose (since the parties essentially stipulate it) and places more emphasis on the question of deference to the legislative judgments involved. Judge Magney 21:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

This is really at the heart of the matter with respect to public reaction to the proposal. I'm very interested in anything Magney can point to that shows this is not a novel use of eminent domain. Also, I took out the word "demonstrated" here because by definition the economic development plan is a future projection, and not yet established in fact. --OtisTDog 03:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Please read more carefully. "Demonstrated" refers to the public purpose, which is manifested as the plan is adopted. Judge Magney 21:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Call me a layman if you like, but I would imagine most readers likely to be laymen, too. Given over 90% of local residents opposed the takings, I wouldn't say they would consider it as having been adequately "demonstrated" to them. --OtisTDog 21:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Irrevelevant. The popularity of a proposal cannot determine its constitutional legitimacy. And that is a completely different rationale than you originally stated. Judge Magney 00:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Magney: First, I agree with your analysis re: popularity vs. constititutionality. Second, that's true -- it is a different rationale. That's because you convinced me that the word "demonstrated" is probably defensible in the more restrictive legal sense of the word. I am now objecting to it because I think it's misleading in the broader general sense of the word (i.e. layman's sense). Perhaps I should have been more explicit in the above comment (in which I was trying to show the conflict between general-use interpretation and legal-use interpretation). By the way, I genuinely appreciate the chance to work this out here in the talk page instead of playing the revert game. --OtisTDog 01:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Missoulian Reference

I disagree with the assessment that it's not "notable". After all, I noted it. I repeat my request that those who want to define "notability" more restrictively do so in a quantitative/objective manner. --OtisTDog 22:51, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't notable, I said it didn't add anything to the article, which already states that the hotel would lead to more revenue. Dave (talk) 22:55, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Notability was previously defended as the core reason for keeping this entire contested section, and until the meaning of that is determined, anything that doesn't color interpretation of established facts (or trivial projections) seems like fair game to me. As this is in the commentary section, its significance to the article is that there is at least some level of acknowledged public agreement with this statement, which is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as the proposal's key strength in light of Kelo. --OtisTDog 23:05, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

So find an article which says the proposal is popular. Currently, there are other sources that say it's been accepted by others. Presumably, the Missoulian editors didn't like it because it would raise tax revenue. Dave (talk) 01:39, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

That's definitely a fair criticism of the summary I placed; it does imply that that's the reason they like it and that inference is not supported by the article itself. Will you give me a few hours to think about rephrasing and/or dropping? Again, I appreciate the chance to work this out over here. --OtisTDog 01:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Oops. I just removed it before I saw your response. Sorry. Dave (talk) 01:53, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

No problem. I really wouldn't have a basis for calling that unfair given my stated rules of engagement, but I'm glad it was accidental. I posted a revised version. Thoughts, anyone? --OtisTDog 02:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Your version is acceptable to me. I think this issue is no longer unresolved. Dave (talk) 02:06, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I object to the inclusion of comments like those of the Missoulian and Sterling Burnett if Wizbang! is deleted. Neither comment is as substantive or as notable (at least as measured by Google citations), and the Wizbang! post represents a change of position by the sort of blogger who (collectively) played a significant role in giving the proposal its very transient prominence. Judge Magney 02:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

But Wizbang doesn't say anything Barnett didn't. I'll change the status of this back to unresolved, though. The best solution is probably to replace missoulian and Burnett with something more prominent and remove Wizbang. Dave (talk) 02:41, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it does. Barnett comments on the substantive implications of the proposal. Wizbang! comments on Clements' motives. That was why I picked it out. Judge Magney 03:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

On second thought... the Missoulian is a newspaper, so google hits aren't an accurate measure of how many people saw it. Let's retain it, but get rid of Burnett (not to be confused with Barnett). That way, we'll have a blog, a person that supports it, and a person that changes his/her mind, and get rid of non-notable arguments. Dave (talk) 03:00, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I'm still advocating inclusion of the Missoulian reference, and the Barnett reference, pending emergence of some unanimously-defined threshold of "notability". --OtisTDog 04:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The signatures

I think that the "On August 8, 2005, 1,399 names appeared on the pledge list." Is sufficientWynler 21:24:46, 2005-08-09 (UTC)

I think the word "appeared" could be confusing and/or misleading -- it could imply they all were added that day, or, less charitably, that they were not names of real people. Either way, it definitely reduces the sense of public action, which I think is important. I also believe the original sentence I added, indicating when the 1,000 mark was reached, is of historical significance, and shows the rapid rise (and subsequent ebb) of the pledges. I'll abide by this until I can convince you otherwise, though. --OtisTDog 23:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

How about

"By 20:26 GMT on July 1, 2005 over 1,000 registered users had signed the list."

With a final tally added once the August 29th deadline is reached. Making it "registered" users lets everyone know that they are not anonymous name entries, but also they are not completely confirmed people.Wynler 02:07:59, 2005-08-10 (UTC)

This seems sensible to me. I tried a different version while incorporating other Magney changes, but I agree this is fair. --OtisTDog 03:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

"Not completely confirmed people"? The site requires only confirmation that an email address exists for a pledge; a person who has multiple email addresses (hardly unusual) can sign multiple times. Since the site has no procedure for verifying user identity, there is no way of knowing how many actual users were involved. Judge Magney 21:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Nonetheless, presumption of fraud is unwarranted and hardly fair; there's no evidence to suggest there has been any. --12.15.238.50 21:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC) Update: This comment is mine. --OtisTDog 21:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Commentary Section

I'm still of the opinion that this section should be removed in it's entirity.Wynler 21:24:46, 2005-08-09 (UTC)

Heartily agreed. --OtisTDog 23:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Heartily disagree for reasons above. Dave (talk) 00:25, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Are we all agreed that the commentary section should/will remain? Dave (talk) 02:06, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I DON'T LIKE IT!!! :) But if everyone else does. It's good with me.Wynler 03:10:59, 2005-08-11 (UTC)

I'm actually coming around a bit on the commentary section, per my previous argument that, if the proposal fails, it still deserves an article as a political meme. All those references to the public discussion serve an educational value (so long as they don't include POV-inserting text from the referenced material). It's likely that the "notability" battle will continue ad-infinitum, but maybe not. --OtisTDog 03:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Phrasing of Hoffman Commentary Summary

In response to Harry491's edit of the Hoffman commentary summary sentence: I don't see it. You didn't add any new message from Hoffman to the talk section, and the old message specifically states "You should look to other blogs who explored the legal and ethical issues more thoroughly than I - some concluded that Clements' actions were, in fact, illegal". See my quote taken directly from his site (instead of via an anonymous comment) that directly states he is not accusing anyone of being guilty, and the list of speculations and rejections from his original post. In the interests of reasonability, I'll call truce for 24 hours on that. Anybody else have thoughts on the matter? --OtisTDog 17:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

where is "your quote?" Dave (talk) 17:14, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

It's from my post of 21:38, 8 August 2005. Kind of buried up in a messier thread.--OtisTDog 17:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, it may not be exactly standard procedure, but I'm going to keep reverting the Hoffman quote every time I see it pop up, even if other changes are included. This is a known point of contention. I won't revert if its not included. Trying to embed it as a Trojan Horse with other edits is no more and no less fair than reverting all accompanying material -- especially when the reversion is temporary, and I'm accepting the burden of integration. --OtisTDog 22:38, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

That's probably a form of disruption. I seriously encourage you to just delete the paragraph instead of making massive changes to the article. What exactly is your objection to the quote? Dave (talk) 22:52, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I'll take the chance that an administrator might look at it that way, especially since it's another one of those swords that cuts both ways. I've said before, but I'll say it again: 1) The "mugging" comparison serves only to misinform the reader and/or indirectly introduce POV: The proposal would make use of eminent domain, which by definition is not theft, therefore the comparison to a mugging is not educational unless the goal is to characterize all use of eminent domain as theft. 2) The characterization of the proposal as "threatening a judge" is also misinforming: No portion of the proposal involves causing bodily harm to Souter. 3) The bit about "striking at the heart of government of ordered liberty" has no basis: The proposal in no way aims to change our government -- to dismiss Souter as a Supreme Court Justice, alter the takings clause in the Constitution, or anything of the sort. For all of these reasons, I deem it a violation of NPOV guidelines, and I don't think the thin veneer of the "quoting non-neutral text in neutral way" applies because the merit of the proposal centers on a question of law, not the formation of a subjective opinion through such rhetorical tactics. Why not encourage Magney to justify its inclusion? Isn't that how proper academic writing works, by motivated inclusion? --OtisTDog 23:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The fact that you disagree with the commentary, however strongly, is not an appropriate basis for deleting it. Judge Magney 01:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Magney, you know that personal disagreement is not the basis of the contention. That's why the summary and link are still there, even though I think the whole section should be gone (and even though there's more registered support here for that idea than there is to keep it, so far). There's no way you could be reading this discussion and still not know that I am open to attempts to convince me it belongs. I guess it's back to the revert game, for now. I was hoping we were making progress. --OtisTDog 01:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

What you say you are open to, and what you are open to, are in practice two different things. There is no consensus for deleting it; it should stay. As another user noted, the complaint you make could quite properly (indeed, more properly) apply to all of Clements' bloviations about "lost liberty" and his own good faith. Judge Magney 03:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't think you can legitimately claim some sort of hypocrisy on my part on this, since you never answered my questions about positive academic reasons to include it. Without a response to my reasons for deleting it, there's been no opportunity to be convinced. (Side note: I find current form of "threatening a judge" phrasing acceptable so long as the "unable to identify any broken laws" phrasing accompanies it.) --OtisTDog 04:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

"Public Purpose" in intro

I rolled back that most recent change of yours, Dave, because all the analysis I've been reading shows that "public purpose" is still a critical component even post-Kelo. Perhaps JamesMLane or someone else can attest to this? --OtisTDog 02:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I added the phrase "public purpose." You added a typo, but I'll fix that in a second. Dave (talk) 02:15, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Sorry. The history view was attributing names incorrectly (and other weirdness -- database lag?) while I was reviewing changes. Plus, I was tired. I didn't mean to claim your work -- obviously I agree with the change. --OtisTDog 03:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Letter from Joe Falia

Magney: In edit notes you claim there is no such letter and that I should do some fact checking. I did so, and I haven't located any evidence that the letter is disclaimed by Falia; it has been cited quite frequently without apparent refutation. Do you have a reference that shows otherwise? --OtisTDog 14:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I made no such claim. I said there is no "published letter" from the "Board of Selectman [sic]". Read what I wrote. Judge Magney 14:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I quote your edit note directly: "Among other things, there is no such letter from the Board of Selectmen." The link demonstrating publication has been tehre for some time. Perhaps the confusion lies in that the letter came from just one member and not the board as a whole. My edit earlier today clarifies this. --OtisTDog 15:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Coherence of Intro

Magney seems to feel that the current intro is incoherent. I'm not sure whether he's referring to the reworded Kelo summary sentence or the section as a whole. I do not object to the summary sentence being moved down to the "History" section, but it then collides with some previous content there. I'd like to get some input here before I overwrite the seemingly uncontested summary sentence in the "History" section. Anyone have thoughts on how they can be integrated? --OtisTDog 16:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Request to Delete Old Sections of Talk

This page is getting kind of long. Does anyone object to deleting sections "old commentary", "rewrite in support", and "no merge"? I'd also consider "some factual background", since the possibility that the idea was launched as a publicity stunt by Clements seems uncontested. I'd also like to break up the preceding "My Commentary" block into two sections: "Open Issues" and "Resolved Issues". Anyone have any objections or suggestions? --OtisTDog 17:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. Just make sure you copy the stuff you delete into Talk:Lost Liberty Hotel/Archive1 and put a link to it up at the top. Dave (talk) 17:28, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yup, Sounds good to me too. Send it to the Archive!Wynler 17:32:33, 2005-08-10 (UTC)

I left up the "factual background" for now until we hear from others. What about the "neutrality disputed" section? I think everyone would agree the banner belongs there for now. --OtisTDog 17:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Leave the banner until we get the last few problems worked out. And , I'd leave the "Neutrality Disputed" section up for now as well. It points out part of what started the whole fight. It's been really interesting watching the article swing back and forth to reach a more NPOV. Wynler 18:28:23, 2005-08-10 (UTC)

What about the "(N)POV issues" section? The discussion there hasn't been touch in some time and seems to revolve around wording that has been discarded. Most of the text is by Magney -- I'll wait for his confirmation before I archive it. --OtisTDog 14:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

(Presumably) Resolved Issues

The faxed request

I think both the disputed revisions need some discussion... I'll suggest something later.Wynler 21:24:46, 2005-08-09 (UTC)

What exactly is the issue here? Is it still disputed? Dave (talk) 02:16, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

No, the current form is good with me. Something about it doesn't seem quite right. But it's not a big deal. I'll bring it up in discussion later if something comes to me. So this can be considered closed unless there is objectionsWynler 02:37:26, 2005-08-11 (UTC)

Current version fine with me. Should I archive this subsection? --OtisTDog 03:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course not. The text as it stands assumes Clements was acting in good faith (which many would deny). Judge Magney 16:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

but v and

Just take it out and make it "...publicity stunt. Amidst..."Wynler 21:24:46, 2005-08-09 (UTC)

Good solution! --OtisTDog 23:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

What exactly is the issue here? Is it still "open"?

It was an issue from quite a few revisions ago, which no longer exists in the current revision. So I'm moving this to the Resovled section. If it re-emerges we can address it later.Wynler 03:09:28, 2005-08-11 (UTC)

Breaking the sentences apart works for me. --OtisTDog 03:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The Just Dessert's

I think that this information is relevant, but needs to be moved to a different section. Still thinking this one overWynler 21:24:46, 2005-08-09 (UTC)

The cafe is mentioned in two places. We don't need it in both. Dave (talk) 01:12, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Agree. The way it's layed out currently is good with me. I'd like to see a few more details in the proposed details section. But it's not a deal breaker. Moving to resolved.Wynler 03:17:46, 2005-08-11 (UTC)

I think the best location is the "details" section. Current version fine. --OtisTDog 03:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Local Officals v Local Enforcement Officer

The quote is from Chip Meaney. So it should read New London's Code Enforcment Officer.Wynler 21:24:46, 2005-08-09 (UTC)

There were quotations from at least two local officials, but OtisTDog is intent on removing one quotation, without providing an explanation. Judge Magney 23:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

That's not the case; at least, not intentionally. I'm pretty sure the second quotation (which makes it legit to use the phrasing Magney wants) has been introduced along with the contested Hoffman quote. As stated in talk above, I intend to incorporate this change (san Hoffman quote) later if Magney hasn't already. --OtisTDog 23:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The "officials" version has been incoporated. --OtisTDog 22:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Wizbang! Reference

I added it back in because I believe it was originally added by Magney, but it was deleted by Harry491. I do not oppose its deletion; this was a courtesy. Magney, if you don't object to dropping it, please say so here. This could be the first time to go to the "resolved issues" section. --OtisTDog 22:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Kerr did the same thing as Wizbang! and is more notable. Presumably Judge Magney didn't add this/would not object to its deletion. Dave (talk) 22:57, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I included the Wizbang! comment because it showed more Google references that the Missoulian and Sterling Burnett comments combined. I have no particular affection for it (or for any of the other commentary I inserted, except the local press note). I simply felt it useful to balance the marginally (at best) notable supportive comments with more notable antagonistic comments. Judge Magney 00:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC) [NOTE: comment temporarily deleted by unexplained technical glitch.]

Another deleted Magney comment in the talk history shows that he doesn't really care about this reference. I'll leave it there for now (in case the missing text means he's changed his mind), but I won't contest anybody dropping it. --OtisTDog 01:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Barnett Quote

I've added in most all of the updates Magney placed earlier, still leaving out the contested Hoffman quote and also one more that disputes the legality of proposal on the basis that it is a retaliation. I don't believe the author of the quote has the definitive knowledge to say anything about Clements' motivation (even if he perceives that motivation as being retaliation). I also object from a legal standpoint: I'm not persuaded that it can be conclusively shown to be retaliation or punitive, any more than other uses of eminent domain would be, or that it would matter that retaliation was a motive, should the proposal be approved in the future. --OtisTDog 03:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

It's clearly retaliation, even according to Clements himself. As an Objectivist, he wouldn't use the government to initiate force (or do it himself). He justifies taking Souter's property by arguing that the court initiated force, and he is responding. Here's the "money quote:"

The activist says he is aware of the apparent conflict of someone who is strongly opposed to the Kelo decision using it to purposely oust an American from his property.

"I realize there is a contradiction, but we're only going to use it against people who advocated" the Kelo decision, Clements told WND. "Therefore, it's a case of retaliation, not initiation."[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45029]

Dave (talk) 03:30, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Damning evidence, Dave. I've added a modified version with a link to the quote you pointed to. The modification is because the majority opinion does not clearly forbid A to B transfers, leaving it an open question per the quote in the "legal criticism" section. I took out the indent quote format because no other entry in this section uses it. (I see that my username isn't on that edit; it seems I got logged out at some point.) --OtisTDog 04:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Archive this? --OtisTDog 03:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Intro revisions/reinstatements

The Weare Selectmen did not reject the Clements proposal; they took no action since Clements refused to file the appropriate paperwork to put the matter before them.

Well, I see your point, but Clements's current claim is that there's no point in pursuing the proper paperwork if the Board is sure to reject it. --OtisTDog 03:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The ballot initiative comment is now sourced; it is announced on the Freestar homepage and mentioned in several news accounts. Some details come from the video on the linked page. I think it is fair to infer that, since Clements is still asking for signatures, that the minimum has not been met to date.

Definitely agree this deserves mention as a current state item. Magney's reference is totally fair, to my mind. --OtisTDog 03:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I resimplified the reference to the Constitution. It is not the 5th but the 14th that governs, technically, and precise and accurate exposition would weigh down the intro without addressing any of the substantive matters.

I'll take your word for it; a weighty discussion like that probably belongs elsewhere. (Does it exist in another article now?). While on this item, I'd like to say that any technical, precise, and accurate exposition you could bring towards the (reinstated) "Legal Criticism" section would be welcome. If the claim deserves to be demolished as a matter of law, that's what I created the section for. If the whole "Lost Liberty Hotel" phenomenon is based on a public misunderstanding of the impact of Kelo, what better place to educate people than in this article? People looking for this topic are quite possibly of the (mistaken, you seem to think) view that the Kelo decision makes such a claim completely legitimate. --OtisTDog 03:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC) UPDATE: On this topic, if you have a reference to the reason why the 14th governs, it would be much appreciated. --OtisTDog 14:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The New London development is not purely private, but has a nontrivial public component, including support space for a state park.

Doesn't the fact that the company that developed the plan is a private entity owned by the city come into play here? Also, isn't there significance that the future development plan of the majority of lots taken isn't even specified in the plan? --OtisTDog 03:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

No. No. Read what I wrote. Judge Magney 04:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I have read everything you wrote. Obviously, I don't see it the same way as you do. Perhaps you have additional information you take for granted. If you were to reply in forms like "No, [why the city's relationship to development corporation is irrelevant]" and "No, [why it doesn't matter that future use isn't specified when public purpose hinges on future use]" we could come to agreement more quickly. --OtisTDog 04:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

We will never come to an agreement so long as you argue that a development including a state park is purely private. Read what I wrote. Judge Magney 05:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I've updated the intro to reflect this important factual distinction. --OtisTDog 14:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

And the Court noted that economic development is generally recognized as a public purpose, making some language redundant.

Maybe by lawyers, but I don't think it is by the public. I think the "public purpose" phrase serves a definite purpose.

And what support do you have for this eccentric claim, since most of the public has embraced, in principle, government-sponsored economic development since the New Deal, and even the segment that objects to it recognizes its existence in practice? Judge Magney 04:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

My support is the whole public controversy over the Kelo decision, one aspect of which is being documenting with this article. Don't you think there's a signficant difference between government-sponsored economic development with eminent domain takings and government-sponsored economic development via other means? (I ask solely as a matter of definition, not to provoke an argument over the relative merits of either.) --OtisTDog 04:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Nothing you say has any relevance to public recognition of economic development as a governmental function. Read what I wrote. Judge Magney 05:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, how about if I put it this way: The Court may have clarified it, but this article hasn't yet. I tried a new version out that may do so. --OtisTDog 14:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

More revisions tomorrow. I find much in the most recent revisions objectionable, particularly the comment about "previous uses" of eminent domain, which is grossly inaccurate. Judge Magney 03:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely welcome more nuance on this. The two types of uses I'm pointing to are the ones everyone I know is familiar with, deriving from Berman (for nuisance/blight) and older cases. --OtisTDog 03:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

You should become acquainted with more knowledgeable people, or do some research yourself. Judge Magney 05:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

RE: Knowledgeable people -- as you claim to be one, imparting such knowledge to this conversation would be useful and cooperative. RE: self research -- I have been, but any relevant references you have to any of my open questions here would be appreciated. --OtisTDog 14:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

If you do not understand so basic a point, you should stop editing material that you do not understand and educate yourself. If you want a professional consultation from me, you can pay for my time. Judge Magney 14:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Magney, that kind of tone is not really warranted, but it doesn't bother me. What super-basic point am I missing, exactly? That economic development was counted by the Court as a public purpose? That economic development is widely considered an acceptable government function? Such questioning will no doubt invite additional scorn from you, but it's not clear what you think my confusion is. Also, I encourage you consider answering these questions as a generous pro bono contribution to Wikipedia and in the cause of public enlightenment. --OtisTDog 15:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Given that your comments evidence a failure to even read the applicable Wikipedia pages in lieu of inserting your acquaintances' poorly informed opinions as though they were fact, I hardly see that any public enlightenment will result for enabling your sloth. Judge Magney 16:59, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Lost Liberty Hotel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110617012631/http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=57807 to http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=57807
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20051112170453/http://news.bostonherald.com:80/national/view.bg?articleid=92151 to http://news.bostonherald.com/national/view.bg?articleid=92151

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Constitution Park (New Hampshire) into Lost Liberty Hotel

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result is no discussion = no consensus as per WP:CONSENSUS. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:41, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

---

These were both just political stunts in protest of Kelo v. New London, and were neither developed nor notably in development. User:力百 (alt of power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.