>     Now, since we live real close to the Atlantic I have to also worry
>     about
>     getting replaced by a resort.
>
>     ][<
>
> *Can anybody here explain the Supremes' reasoning behind this
> decision? I gotta believe it makes sense somehow, but just can't see
> it.  In the other hand, there are the seemingly contradictory Ten
> Commandments decisions, so who knows?*

The only explanation that made sense to me was something about how
building a big-ass hotel/resort complex provides economic development
which is a public resource. Phizer had something to do w/ it at New
London, CT where this got started in the legal system -- and will Groton
lose the sub contracts or not? Either that or it has Haliburton or
Custer's Battles or your favorite Saudi Prince writ all over it. But I
am reminded of reading something by Koestler re: France in WW2 and a
remote village that figured they needed to build another better village
on the main road in a nearby valley because life was not good enough to
them... so they spent all of their money and hocked their futures and
then all of it got blown to shit.

][<

--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>