Treading on seared sparklers and discarded confetti leftover from a long holiday weekend, residents of New London will join Institute for Justice representatives to assemble in front of their City Hall for a rally next Tuesday at 6 p.m. to express outrage at the recent Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. City of New London, a case that has set a momentous precedent for the disputed use of eminent domain across the country.

“It took us a couple days to recover from the shock of the decision,” said Susette Kelo, the homeowner named in the case, which began in December 2000. “But with the public outcry we can channel our energy into rallies Â… and continue to fight. We’re certainly not going to go.”

Eminent domain, the constitutional practice of private property being seized by the government for a public service – traditionally involving the construction of highways, schools or other public works projects – has been redefined by the 5-4 Supreme Court vote on June 23, which will allow a number of private residences to be sold by the New London city government and razed to make way for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

The hope of the local government is that the new commercial developments will create higher tax revenues than the pre-existing single-family homes and bolster the faltering economy. “We appreciate that there are problems [faced] in raising revenue, but [local governments] are going to have to use this power wisely,” said Robert Fiorito, president of the Connecticut Association of Realtors.

“Obviously, we are concerned about the court decision. Realtors stand behind the Fifth and 14th amendments that allow people to own their own homes Â… and [the court’s decision] goes against everything we believe in,” said Fiorito. “Towns do have a right to take land for the public good, but the public benefit criteria needs to be a little more spelled out than just economic development. The major concern is that local municipalities can strip people of their personal property rights if there’s more tax revenue to be found in [other developments] Â… People are energized on both sides of the issue. It’s a very touchy situation.”

Real estate lawyer Dwight Merriam, past president of the American Institute of Certified Planners and author of the soon-to-be published analysis, “Eminent Domain Use and Abuse: Kelo in Context,” said there is at least one group backing the court’s supporting opinion that economic development provides “appreciable benefits” to a community. “I’ve been watching scores of messages from planners, who are generally pleased. In Connecticut, half to three-quarters [of the state’s planners] are pleased to have a new tool, or really just a clarification of what was [already in the law],” he said. “But, also, there are others who have mixed feelings Â… and believe that the government should be very [cautious] about over-reading Kelo Â… [That it should] not be viewed as carte blanche.”

‘Last Word’ to Come

Merriam reflected on a similar case, reviewed by the Michigan Supreme Court in 2004, which lays out a clearer plan than Kelo in attempting to clarify the gray area which is conducive to eminent domain abuse. “There are three essential parts that the Michigan Supreme Court described last July that I believe must be considered in every case,” Merriam said. “One, extreme necessity Â… two, that the local government should have continuing oversight Â… and three, the project must be a good plan properly considered in a public forum at the local level before going forward with eminent domain.”

Merriam said it is hoped that local governments will use their “new tool” responsibly – as a means of discriminately revitalizing their neighborhoods and not siding with more lucrative corporate ties ahead of the people who make up their communities.

“The plain fact is Â… that New London is [an economically] distressed place Â… and there are compelling stories on both sides. But regardless of what side you’re on, there are some times when a single-family home will need to be taken,” said Merriam. “When the public good is larger than the magnitude of loss from single-family homeowner. When the public necessity becomes so extreme that it’s necessary to displace a person.”

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the court’s dissenting opinion, which acknowledges the potential floodgates of abuse that the Supreme Court has opened. “Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms,” O’Connor wrote for the minority. “The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.”

And in the coming months, Susette Kelo and her close-knit community of fellow evictees – many of whom have lived in their homes for decades – are expected to be replaced by a higher tax bracket. “We’re not going to leave,” said Kelo. “We’re going to do everything we can to keep our homes Â… and we’re not alone. The Institute for Justice [a libertarian public interest law firm based in Washington, D.C.] will stand with us to keep us fighting for our homes and to help to stop the government from taking [away our] property rights.”

Unwilling participants often suffer in political battles of extremes, according to Merriam. “The danger for both sides is that [either] end of the continuum is fighting to find out where the middle is,” he said. And when the search for middle ground becomes the ultimate goal, the process often takes time – something the New London residents can’t afford to waste.

“The court simply got the law wrong [June 23], and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result,” Scott Bullock, senior attorney for the Institute for Justice, said on the organization’s Web site. “With [the] ruling, the poor and middle class will be most vulnerable to eminent domain abuse by government and its corporate allies. The 5-4 split and the nearly equal division among state supreme courts shows just how divided the courts really are. This will not be the last word.”