In a country where private property is sacred, the government's right to seize land for its own devices will always be contentious.

Done in the service of building a school or a hospital, it can be defensible. Taking people's homes for the nebulous "public good" of economic development is deplorable.

In a case that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, the residents of New London fought back against such folly. When the drug company Pfizer announced in 2001 it was opening a new research center in that city, officials began the process of acquiring nearby land for an accompanying development project. Homeowners who were to be forced out said "no."

The residents lost that case, as the Supreme Court four years later ruled the government had the right to take their homes and turn the land over to a private developer, all because the plan was supposed to, someday, bring jobs and tax dollars to the struggling community. It was a bad decision then and only looks worse in retrospect.

The news now is that Pfizer is leaving New London, closing its facility and moving its work up the street to Groton. All the grand development plans, which weren't progressing in any event, have now been shelved for good. Where people's homes once stood, only weeds grow.

The situation bears some similarities with Bridgeport's own Steel Point. What was once a neighborhood of homes and businesses, taxpayers all, has for a decade and more stood vacant, as one grand proposal

Advertisement
after another faded from the scene.

There's a new plan now, one city leaders swear will finally bear fruit. And maybe it will.

The lesson, though, is clear. Eminent domain must be an absolute last resort, not merely one option on the table. It can only be used for concrete plans, with stable financing. And it should be strictly limited to works that serve an unambiguous public good.

Anything else is an abuse of power.