SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
From: LindyBill2/5/2006 8:41:13 AM
   of 793717
 
David Souter can sleep peacefully now......because his neighbors think more of his rights than he thinks of theirs.

Weare nixes ‘Hotel Souter’
By RUSS CHOMA
Union Leader Correspondent
1 hour, 52 minutes ago

Weare – An attempt to take U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter’s home by eminent domain and turn it into a hotel was squashed by Weare voters at yesterday’s town deliberative session.

Residents voted twice to amend a warrant article which would have made way for the seizing of Souter’s home at 34 Cilley Road.

The first amendment, approved by a vote of 94-59, effectively gutted the warrant article by reversing the wording. The second amendment, approved unanimously, rewrote the article.

The new language bars selectmen from taking the property and calls for town officials to ask legislators to protect property from eminent domain takings that benefit private enterprise.

The idea to take Souter’s home was launched by Logan Darrow Clements, a California man looking to protest a U.S. Supreme Court decision that lets municipalities take property for privately owned projects that create jobs and tax revenue.

Clements wanted the town to take Souter’s home and create the Lost Liberty Inn, a private business.

Several members of the Committee for the Protection of Natural Rights – a Weare-based group – spoke in favor leaving the article unchanged.

“Some of our detractors like to liken this to an act of vengeance, an act of retribution — that’s not it,” Joshua Solomon said. “This is our means of highlighting the fact that we’re losing our privileges.”

Several residents said they disagreed with the court decision, but thought it was wrong to go after Souter.

“I’m repelled at the thought of punishing justices for the decisions they make,” said Paul Morin. “America stands for democracy and difference of opinion. Justice Souter did his job and we should be proud of it, whether we agree with it or not.”

Voters also discussed whether to approve $80,000 to hire two full-time police officers to ensure 24-hour a day police service.

Resident Jan Racicot brought the meeting to a halt with a tearful plea for around the clock service.

Racicot described how her husband, Dale, died last summer of a heart attack just hours after returning from Iraq where he served as a Marine.

“We’re going to spend $700,000 to protect the town’s rural character, but the hell with the citizens of the town?” she asked, referring to a conservation measure. “What good is protecting the rural character if there’s no one around to enjoy it?”
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext