Weare voters put an end to plans to seize the home of U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter yesterday.

“He’s one of ours,” Walter Bohlin said, adding: “Why would we take something from one of ours?”

For seven months, Souter’s brown farmhouse and eight acres on Cilley Road have been the focal point of a nationwide response to a controversial U.S. Supreme Court decision. In June, Souter sided with a 5-4 majority in allowing a Connecticut city to seize private property by eminent domain and offer it to developers who could bring the community greater economic benefit.

Logan Darrow Clements, a California man who was incensed with the court’s ruling, devised a plot to give Souter his just desserts: take the justice’s property and convert it into a “Lost Liberty Inn.” Local residents petitioned to put the issue on the town’s March ballot.

The article asked the town to seize the land and create two trust funds: one to pay for any legal expenses and another to compensate Souter. The money would be raised by private donation.

The idea captured national media attention. Clements, a Los Angeles native, flew to Weare twice to hold rallies. Supporters deluged town officials with emails; some even sent checks and asked to reserve rooms at the inn.

Bohlin, who said the article was vengeful, recommended negating it by inserting the word “not.” Voters approved Bohlin’s suggestion by a secret ballot vote of 94-59.

Then another resident, Paul Doscher, suggested adding language to the article that urges state lawmakers to further restrict land seizures by eminent domain. The Legislature is considering several such proposals. The amended article forbids the town from seizing Souter’s land and asks Gov. John Lynch and lawmakers to bar the transfer of private property to private interests for economic development.

The amended article passed by a unanimous voice vote, followed by a loud cheer. Residents will vote on the measure next month.

Keith Lacasse, a resident who petitioned to take Souter’s land, said the amended article “lacks teeth.” He and other supporters thought threatening to take Souter’s land would convince lawmakers across the country to limit property seizure by eminent domain.

“What you’re doing in Weare is keeping the bulldozers from starting up in New London,” said Joshua Solomon, a Lost Liberty Inn supporter. His comment referred to the Connecticut community involved in the 5-4 ruling,

Clements, who did not attend the meeting, said the measure should have gone to ballot so more voters in the town of about 8,500 could decide the issue.

Clements says altering the article to essentially negate its purpose is unethical and unconstitutional. He says the selectmen misled the voters at the meeting by saying the article was illegal and could spark a lawsuit. Town officials said the article was flawed because it asked to create a public trust funded with private donations, which is not legal, said Selectman Joe Fiala.

Clements said he was considering filing a lawsuit.

“There was a great deal of lies that our opponents used to confuse people and defeat this,” he said.

The selectmen opposed the project from the start and said they would not take Souter’s land even if voters approved the inn. They received thousands of emails from people across the country who supported the project. As yesterday’s meeting approached, the emails grew nastier. Some called the board of selectmen “The Tali-Board,” comparing its refusal to leave the issue up to voters to the oppressive regime of the Afghan fundamentalist group the Taliban.

But board members say most of the emails were sent from people living in other states. Some thought Weare was a city; others thought the town’s name was spelled “Ware,” selectmen said.

Single page