By Nicholas Brown
Staff Writer

Local opponents of the U.S. Supreme Court decision involving eminent domain have submitted a warrant article by petition aimed at seizing the Weare property of Associate Justice David Souter.

In the meantime, a California activist, Logan Clements, is gearing up for a Jan. 21-22 rally in Weare to gain supporters for the plan to build an inn in place of Souter's Cilley Hill Road home.

Last summer, Souter voted with the majority in the court's controversial decision in the Kelo vs. New London case.

The Supreme Court upheld a Connecticut Superior Court's ruling that the city of New London – as represented by a nonprofit corporation aimed at planning economic development – was justified in seizing several private properties through eminent domain for the city's economic benefit.

According to court records, the New London development plan was “projected to create in excess of 1,000 jobs, to increase tax and other revenues, and to revitalize an economically distressed city.” The court upheld such benefits as legitimate “public use,” justifying the use of eminent domain.

Since then, several states have enacted legislation tightening the definitions of “public use,” and New Hampshire legislators are currently mulling over several bills addressing eminent domain.

The group that submitted the petition with Weare's town clerk, the Committee for the Protection of Natural Rights, was formed several months after the decision.

“If the Committee for the Protection of Natural Rights does its job, it will make it very hard for us to take Souter's land,” said Gary Hopper, one of the committee's founders, and a former New Hampshire state representative.

Hopper said he recently attended a state House hearing on some proposed eminent domain legislation, and said he was encouraged by the efforts of some state legislators.

“If everything goes well there would be a (state) constitutional amendment next November,” he said.

Despite apparent interest from the Legislature, Hopper said his committee plans to move forward with its own eminent domain efforts.

The petitioned warrant article, which will likely appear on the March ballot, calls for the seizure of Souter's eight-acre parcel, and the establishing of two funds – one to pay fair market value for the property, and one for anticipated legal expenses.

The petition cites the Kelo vs. New London case and calls for an “Inn” to be developed in place of Souter's home.

“We can't just sit back and hope that the legislature is going to do something,” said Hopper. Hopper said committee members called 50 to 60 Weare residents – selected at random – about half of whom said they'd support such a warrant article.

“The other half said they thought it was inappropriate,” said Hopper.