|
N.H. Town Rejects Plan to
Evict Souter
By KATHY
McCORMACK, Associated Press WriterSat Feb 4, 10:58 PM ET
Residents on Saturday rejected a proposal to evict U.S.
Supreme Court Justice David Souter from his farmhouse to make way for the "Lost
Liberty Hotel."
A group angered by last year's court decision that gave
local governments more power to seize people's homes for economic development
had petitioned to use the ruling against the justice.
But voters deciding which issues should go on the town's
March ballot replaced the group's proposal with a call to strengthen New
Hampshire's law on eminent domain.
"This is a game," said Walter Bohlin. "Why would we take
something from one of ours? This is not the appropriate way."
Souter, who grew up in Weare, a central New Hampshire town
of 8,500, has not commented on the matter and was not at the meeting.
Joshua Solomon, a member of the Committee for the Protection
of Natural Rights, was disappointed with the vote.
"We lost today, not because there isn't support in this town
but because the turnout wasn't here," he said. "It's not exactly the message we
intended to have."
Solomon had said the group was formed because the Supreme
Court has given courts and legislatures "permission to chip away at our
freedoms."
The Supreme Court ruling allowed New London, Conn., to take
several waterfront homes for a private development. The city argued that the
project would benefit the public by generating tax revenue and new jobs.
The Legislature is considering several proposals to limit
government's ability to use eminent domain.
Copyright
© 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information
contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or
redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
|
Copyright
© 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
[Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without
profit or payment to those who have expressed prior interest in receiving this
information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For further
information please refer to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml |
|