By Rod Hansen
Staff Writer

Voters statewide will soon decide on two proposed constitutional amendments with special importance to Weare.

Question 1 on the Nov. 7 ballot seeks to bar the state from taking any private property by eminent domain and transferring it for private use, while Question 2 looks to guarantee local representation for nearly every town and ward in the state.

“Both the issues of eminent domain and local representation are certainly of concern in Weare, but they’re also of concern in Manchester and everywhere else in the state,” said state Rep. Neal Kurk, a 10-term Republican from Weare who sits on the House Finance Committee.

Kurk is a prime sponsor behind Question 2, along with Rep. Richard Kennedy, R-Contoocook, and state Sen. Robert Flanders, R-Antrim.

That questions seeks to redistrict the state Legislature so most towns and wards gain individual representation. By dividing the state population with the number of seats in the New Hampshire General Court, the proposed amendment seeks to assure that every town or ward in the state would be represented by someone who lives in that district.

Given the state’s current population, any town or ward with at least 3,000 people would get representation in the State House, Kurk said.

The proposal addressed an issue of particular concern to Weare voters, Kurk said.

After redistricting lumped Weare and Goffstown into Hillsborough County District 7, Kurk said Weare has scant chance of maintaining equal representation with its larger neighbor.

Kurk uses his own current state representative race as an example of the problem. Of the 17 candidates currently running for state representative in District 7, he and Libertarian Lisa Wilber are the only two from Weare.

The move to spread representation across a greater number of districts will help to reduce the influence of special interests on campaigns, Kurk said. By allowing the candidates to conduct a more local campaign, the amendment will free them from having to cover expenses by raising special interest money, he said.

“If this question doesn’t pass, there’s going to be a lot more special interest money in Concord, and that’s no good,” he said of Question 2. That item comes to voters with 256-55 votes from the state Legislature and 16-7 in the state Senate.

The other ballot questions relates to Weare less directly, although it addresses an issue that did provoke heated controversy in this hometown of Supreme Court Justice David Souter.

Question 1 asks voters for a constitutional amendment stating, “No part of a person’s property shall be taken by eminent domain and transferred, directly or indirectly, to another person if the taking is for the purpose of private development or other private use of the property.”

This amendment addresses questions raised by the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision Kelo vs. New London, which allowed a Connecticut city to condemn private property and transfer it to a private developer.

Supreme Court Justice David Souter took the majority view on the 5-4 ruling upholding the transfer. The ruling took on a local dimension when California businessman Logan Clements spearheaded an effort to seize Souter’s Weare property and turn it into a tourist’s destination called the Lost Liberty Hotel.

The effort to take Souter’s 8 acres and 200-year-old farmhouse was rejected at the 2006 Town Meeting, as Kurk said it should have been.

“Most people saw (the Lost Liberty Hotel) for what it was: A political statement,” Kurk said. “I think the Kelo decision was wrongly decided, but I don’t think opponents should then try to take the property of a Supreme Court justice,” Kurk said.

A better solution lies in amending the constitution to prohibit condemnations for the purpose of eminent domain transfers, Kurk said.

“I look forward to having the citizens of New Hampshire protected from being condemned for eminent domain purposes,” said Kurk of the question, which was proposed by Rep. Robert Giuda (R-Warren) and state Sen. Richard Green (R-Rochester).

The eminent domain question appears on the ballot with 277-61 votes in the legislature and 24-0 votes in the senate.

State Rep. Pamela Manney (R-Goffstown), who sits on the Executive Departments and Administration Committee, said she voted in favor of both questions as a legislator and plans to do so in the ballot booth as well.

She said the eminent domain issue of Question 1 strikes her as being particularly important.

“I think it’s very important for the voters of New Hampshire to vote yes on Question 1,” Manney said “We don’t want to leave it up to the courts or any other town board to make the decision that the value of our land is more important that our homes.”

Manney also said she supports the redistricting of Question 2.

“The state representatives in Goffstown feel a strong kinship with Weare and we do the best to represent them. What happens if, in the future, all the reps are in Goffstown? For me, that wouldn’t seem fair,” Manney said.