Souter home safe, symbolic vote in his favor
03/15/2006

WEARE, N.H. --David Souter's neighbors have voted better than two to one to leave his home alone.

Activists angered by last year's U.S. Supreme Court decision on property rights wanted to get back at the justice by trying to seize his more than 200-year-old farmhouse to build an inn -- but that proposal fizzled in February.

In a largely symbolic gesture, town voters decided Tuesday 1,167 to 493 to have the selectmen leave Souter's house alone -- and instead urged the New Hampshire Legislature to adopt a law that forbids such property transfers to private interests for economic development via eminent domain.

Logan Darrow Clements of Los Angeles, a businessman who led the campaign to evict Souter called Tuesday's ballot proposal a reversal from the original and said he would take his battle against eminent domain elsewhere.

Even if the majority of voters had rejected the proposal, Souter's home would be safe. Souter has not commented on the matter, which started when he sided with a 5-4 majority to support New London, Conn.'s efforts to seize homes for economic development.

"The idea is to use the ruling that David Souter voted for on David Souter, so that he can understand the importance of property rights and the error of the ruling," Clements said.

After the ballots were counted, Clements said the defeat showed the "Lost Liberty Hotel" backers "lost to big government. So we'll take the battle to end eminent domain elsewhere."

Asked where he would continue that battle, Clements replied that he would focus on making a film about eminent domain issues.

In Weare, two of the major players in the Souter fight were disappointed that their proposal was weakened at February's town meeting, in which residents decided on the language of their ballot issues before actually voting on them. Nevertheless, they ran for selectman Tuesday for two open seats on the five-member board. Both lost.

Keith LaCasse, one of the losing candidates, said he was "pleased to come in third place. It was a good learning experience for me and my children." He received 432 votes.

Earlier in the day, LaCasse said if he were elected he would not have lobbied the board to seize Souter's home unless a proposal actually saying so appeared on next year's ballot.

Joshua Solomon, another supporter of the "Lost Liberty Hotel" plan, also ran for selectman and lost. He said he was disappointed in the results but pleased that Weare voters approved planning board initiatives. He received 284 votes.

Incumbents Leon Methot and Thomas Clow were re-elected with 853 and 955 votes respectively. Walter Bohlin lost with 359 votes.

Bohlin, who spoke out against the original hotel proposal last month, leading residents to change the language, said he received threatening e-mails and phone calls afterward. He said he was not running to defend Souter's home, but because he believes selectmen don't keep adequate minutes and aren't following the "Right to Know" law.

Evelyn Connor, the town clerk, had expected half of the 5,577 registered voters to vote Tuesday, but the turnout was 1,738, fewer than last year's turnout of about 2,200 voters.

While no one keeps track of warrant articles in all of New Hampshire's towns and cities, opponents of the Supreme Court decision said several communities voted in town elections Tuesday to limit eminent domain.

Ken Blevens sponsored a warrant article in Bow that would require two-thirds of the town's voters, instead of the board of selectmen, to approve any seizure of property through eminent domain.

"I'm not eliminating eminent domain," Blevens said. "I'm just putting a few roadblocks in so the chance of it being abused would be less."

In Atkinson, the planning board recommended that voters approve an ordinance to ban taking property for private development or financial gain. The warrant article said land could be taken only for public sector use, "and only if said uses provide direct access and use to and by the public."

Link

Just like New Hampshire to wimp out.  Best move on to the next Justice in line and go after him/her.

Well, that's just TFB, and that stand for Too Bad!
:P

I didn't agree with the "eminent domain" decision myself, but I think the band of jackweeds trying to seize Souter's home were totally obnoxious, and if they succeeded, they would be emboldened to go on to even greater acts of obnoxiousness!  "Logan Darrow Clements," whadda joke!

Anyway, there already IS a Lost Liberty Hotel:

http://www.jfklibrary.org/meredith/images/days_wh_main_printer.jpg
George W. Bush, Lost Liberty Hotelier-in-chief

I didn't agree with the "eminent domain" decision myself, but I think the band of jackweeds trying to seize Souter's home were totally obnoxious.....


Souter and the liberal wing of the court said seizing peoples' private property for a Wal-Mart is okay and somehow acceptable by the U.S. constitution.  Is Souter above his own rulings too?

Geeze!  Both liberals and conservatives agree that this ruling was just wrong.  I guess the imposible can happen.

Souter and the liberal wing of the court said seizing peoples' private property for a Wal-Mart is okay and somehow acceptable by the U.S. constitution.  Is Souter above his own rulings too?


No they didn't.

but nice way to use the Wal-mart boogyman in your rebuttal

No they didn't.


Kelo vs. New London said the constitution allows for taking for peoples' private land for private development to raise tax revenue is "a public purpose."  That is garbage.

The only good thing is the supreme court said that states may ban this practice.  At the time, eight states already had it banned.  Since that decision a little over one year ago, somewhere around dozen more states joined those eight states.  So that was the only good that came from that ruling.