Battle over property rights goes on, despite ruling

The moment of truth is yet to arrive in the now-famous Fort Trumbull neighborhood in New London, Conn.

Six months after the US Supreme Court ruled that the city could seize and demolish private homes to make way for a commercial development project, determined residents are still living in their homes in the targeted neighborhood.

There have been no bulldozers. No wrecking balls. No police officers dragging homeowners away. At least, not yet.

Instead, the state of Connecticut has hired a mediator to try to find a more peaceful solution to the seven-year battle that has touched off a heated debate over the government's use of eminent domain to foster economic development.

To property rights activists across the nation, Fort Trumbull has become ground zero in that battle ever since the high court's 5-4 ruling. These activists are using outrage over the case to spearhead a reform movement aimed at passing laws to make it increasingly difficult for local and state governments to raze homes and turn the land over to private developers.

"It has to be one of the most vilified Supreme Court decisions in history - where people understood the issues, understood the result, and didn't like it," says Scott Sawyer, a member of the legal team representing the homeowners.

On the other side of the debate are government officials, planners, urban renewal experts, and development firms warning that many cities and towns need every tool at their disposal to help foster prosperity in the face of chronic economic decline. To these advocates, New London is a prime example of a small city with high unemployment, a stagnant tax base, and no large tracts of vacant land to support a major development project. Without the option of using eminent domain, the city's economic prospects would be bleak, they say.

"We won. We would like to move the project forward," says New London City Manager Richard Brown. "We are champing at the bit to get going."

There is nothing new about the constitutional issue at the center of the case. The Supreme Court has long recognized that there is no bar to government takings that may provide both public and private benefits.

But Kelo v. New London was different because of the players involved. The high court's two prior legal precedents involved monopolistic landowners in Hawaii and a department store owner in Washington, D.C. In contrast, Susette Kelo is a homeowner, like most US citizens. When the government took action against her, many Americans could imagine the government taking similar action against them. Kelo's pink cottage in Fort Trumbull has become an icon, Mr. Sawyer says, as recognizable to some as the Liberty Bell.

"It is the house that represents property rights in the United States," he says. "Why would you ever tear that down?"

Sawyer and others say they aren't sure what will happen next. City officials say the development project is still economically viable. All they need is a green light from the mediator and the state.

The city's redevelopment agency has spent much of its $70 million budget preparing a large portion of the 90-acre riverfront site for the planned hotel, office, and condo project. Land has been graded, roads built, and utilities installed. But major construction has not yet begun.

Page: 1 | 2