After the U.S. Supreme Court refused last week to reconsider its decision in Kelo v. City of New London that New London has the right to seize people’s property for economic development purposes, some of the homeowners – and many others across the state who were not directly affected by the decision – are looking to Connecticut lawmakers to protect private property rights.

As a result, House Minority Leader Robert Ward said he hopes the state Legislature can do something about it, and perhaps even be able to keep the affected New London residents in their homes.

One resident of the contentious area told the Associated Press last week that he hopes the Legislature will retroactively change the eminent domain law so he does not have to relocate.

“I don’t plan to move,” said Matthew Dery, whose family has lived in the neighborhood for more than 100 years.

Ward said he hopes to help the soon-to-be-displaced residents.

“[New London] has not taken the final steps in the taking,” he noted.

The city needs to get a court order to evict the homeowners, he said, so the Legislature may still be able to allow them to keep their houses.

But much of that is subject to when the issue is heard. The Legislature has not been in session since June, and Ward, a Republican, is not sure if the Democratic leadership of the body will allow the issue to come up during a special session this month. If not, Republicans – many of whom want to write a law banning takings for private developments – will have to wait until next year’s regular session to bring up the issue.

Since the Supreme Court decision, legislators in about 25 other states have sought to change their laws to bar the practice. In Connecticut so far, there have not been many proposals, Ward said.

Ward has proposed some bills on the subject, but they have not yet come up for debate. He said he would like to tighten the definition of blight – blighted buildings are subject to taking by eminent domain – and to prohibit takings for private development. Other proposals have included requiring a community to pay private property owners 150 percent of the value of their property when taking it.