Recently, the US Supreme Court issued a verdict in a case concerning New London, Connecticut. It ruled that a city can use its powers of eminent domain to replace a community with a newer, more tax producing community. What does this ruling put at risk?

As Justice O'Connor wrote in a dissenting opinion, "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.''

The Supreme Court allows New London, Connecticut, to replace a seemingly thriving, working class community with development that will be more aesthetically pleasing (at least in the eyes of some) and generate more taxes and jobs.

The point of contention is this, however. The community was functioning as it was. It was not blighted or corrupt. Simply put, the City needed to generate revenue, and has now been allowed to wipe this community out so that progress may take place.

Yes, the home owners will be paid "just compensation." But I can assure you that whatever they get, it will likely not be enough to allow them to move back close to where they had lived.

In any event, a home is more than a financial investment, it is an emotional attachment. While the community members will receive money, the homes these people loved will be permanently taken from them, along with the family memories and histories attached to the home. What value is to be placed on these less tangible assets?

Yes, economic growth is a legitimate government concern. But so is community stability and loyalty to those who have lived within its bounds for generations. It is not all about the money.

Until now, only blighted communities or properties needed for specific public projects, such as parks, schools and highways, could be taken through eminent domain. Has this New London case gone too far.

And for whose benefit?

Affluent communities will never be replaced. It is probable that the wealthy business and home owners will be the ones to benefit when old neighborhoods are replaced with their new, higher tax generating projects. If this is the case, then it is the average Joe, the working class American that is being compromised.

It's a shame that Justice O'Connor is retiring. Let us hope that John Roberts, or whoever Congress approves, lends his ear to our complaints as readily as she.

Home ownership is the American dream. This ruling places that dream in uncertain peril. In theory every community is affected.

If all of this is the case, then the New London decision is anti-homeownership. It is at odds with traditional American values. And that is a real shame.

Published: July 21, 2005

Use of this article without permission is a violation of federal copyright laws.

Stuart Lieberman, Esq. writes about environmental issues. He was a New Jersey Deputy Attorney General assigned to the State Department of Environmental Protection from 1986 to 1990. Currently he is a shareholder in the environmental law firm of Lieberman & Blecher, P.C., located in Princeton, New Jersey. Stuart can be reached at slieberman@liebermanblecher.com.