Souter's Supreme Stance on Kelo

I don't understand this. Souter voted with the majority on Kelo, yet here is a case when he was on the NH Supreme Court where he ruled that the City of Manchester couldn't sieze open space.

Souter's role then Manchester attorney William H. Craig represented the Manchester Housing Authority, the entity authorized to conduct eminent domain proceedings in the city. To this day, he hasn't changed his view of the Merrill case. "I think you need economic development," Craig said. "People need jobs, we need a good tax base, and I think the first place we should be allowed to look, if other circumstances are proper, is open space. Then, failing that, then you go to people's homes."

Craig said he was not at all surprised with the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, noting it was "perfectly consistent" with other court decisions in recent years. In fact, he said, "The New Hampshire case almost stuck out like a sore thumb, compared to the cases in other jurisdictions."

"The only surprise to me was Judge Souter's position, because he sat on the New Hampshire Supreme Court when the Merrill case was decided," Craig said. "And as far as I can see, the Merrill case stands for the proposition that you can't take open space for economic development but it's OK to take people's houses."

He calls that "absurd."

"It created a bad precedent if you're interested in development at all. God knows I like open space. I'm going to spend the weekend mowing a hayfield I've got. Nevertheless, I think the priorities have to be straight. If people said to me OK, take open land or people's homes, first I'd take the open land."

Very odd stance.

Captain's Quarter also has a piece on the proposal for taking Souter's NH property in Weare for a hotel and discussion of how strongly NH citizens feel on the topic of eminent domain. Strange that they feel so strong, yet there is not a hint of legislation to limit the use of eminent domain in the state.