Most of the houses in New London's Fort Trumbull neighborhood have been razed for private development, but the houses of the "holdouts," who fought and lost a Supreme Court case, remain. (Carolyn Battista)

For decades, people lived, worked, and raised families in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood of New London, Conn. Now the neighborhood's few remaining structures overlook empty stretches of dirt, rocks, and weeds.

Last June, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the city's right to take through eminent domain the properties in the way of its plan for a private development in the waterfront neighborhood. As people around the country consider how that ruling may affect them, New Londoners ask how their city should move forward.

Soon after the court ruling, the city agency in charge of the development—an office, retail, and residential complex—started eviction proceedings against some Ft. Trumbull residents. But city and state officials objected vehemently, saying that the agency was acting without their approval on a project funded largely by the state.

Controversy continues over the area, where in the late 1990s the city began eying 90 acres near the mouth of the Thames River on Long Island Sound. Right away, some New Londoners urged that any development should incorporate many of the existing small businesses and homes. The area wasn't fancy, but some families had lived there for generations. It was "a cohesive neighborhood. There were beautiful gardens," says Neild B. Oldham, a New Londoner who co-chairs the Coalition to Save the Fort Trumbull Neighborhood.

"We've lost so many neighborhoods," says Sandra Chalk, executive director of New London Landmarks, a preservation organization. Fort Trumbull had some derelict structures and a junkyard, but Chalk noted that it also had "nice, old houses, solidly built in the late 1800s and early 1900s."

The state historical commission, however, did not step forward to support the area's preservation. In January 2000, the city council approved a whopping Municipal Development Plan for a hotel, offices, shops, high-end housing, and a proposed U.S. Coast Guard Museum at Ft. Trumbull. The project was to boost the city's economy and complement other new activity nearby: a riverside state park and Pfizer Global Research & Development, which opened in 2001 and now employs 1,500 people. Chalk says that as Pfizer and the park made the neighborhood more desirable, residents began fixing up their houses.

Ft. Trumbull house (Carolyn Battista)

"The existence of Pfizer created excitement," says Michael Joplin, president of the New London Development Corporation (NLDC), which had attracted Pfizer to the city. He notes some $100 million worth of investment downtown, including more than 120 new market-rate apartments. "Rehab works."

Under the leadership of Joplin, a local developer respected for his rehabilitation of old buildings in New London, the NLDC began working with a Boston developer, did roadwork, installed utility lines, purchased dozens of properties, and razed nearly every existing structure in Ft. Trumbull.

New London is a city of six square miles, with about half of its land tax-exempt, so there is almost no land left—after Ft. Trumbull—for development, and less than half of its revenue coming from local taxes. Its downtown is no longer a bustling retail center but has substantial, stately buildings whose rehabilitation can bring new uses and pay for itself. Lately, says the mayor, Elizabeth Sabilia, "grand-list growth has diminished, while the state has reduced funding."

It wasn't economically feasible to work with Ft. Trumbull's modest, aging structures on tiny lots, Joplin says. Instead, it was necessary to assemble lots and clear them for a project big enough "to make a measurable impact" on a city that even with recent successes remains "in extreme duress," he says.

Suzette Kelo's house is still standing. (Carolyn Battista)

Seven Ft. Trumbull property owners refused to sell to the NLDC. Among them was Susette Kelo, whose peach-colored cottage overlooking the water bears a sign saying that it was built "circa 1893" by John Bishop (whom Chalk calls "a classic New England builder"). The holdouts finally appealed to the United State Supreme Court, which in Kelo v. New London ruled 5-4 in favor of the city. The plaintiffs' attorneys from the libertarian Institute for Justice argued that the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take property for public use with just compensation, did not let a city condemn land in order to turn it over to private developers.

But Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, says that government can use its eminent domain powers to facilitate economic development when a legislature had determined that there was a pressing need for that development. He added that states may enact more restrictive eminent domain legislation, and some (including Connecticut) are looking in that direction.

More about the Kelo Case >>

What's next for New London? The mayor, Sabilia, cannot say just how the city will proceed. When the NLDC began its evictions, a firestorm erupted. City and state officials said they'd been blindsided, and the city threatened to cut its ties with the NLDC. The chief operating officer of the NLDC stepped down, the NLDC halted eviction proceedings, and Gov. M. Jodi Rell appointed Robert R. Albright to negotiate with the holdouts. Sabilia says that Albright is expected to report to the city council this month "on his attempts to mediate the impasse. Issues include possession, back rent, and taxes."

Ft. Trumbull sign (Carolyn Battista)

The NLDC recently bought (though not through eminent domain) another Ft. Trumbull home built by John Bishop, planning to tear it down.

Some claim that the holdouts only want outrageous amounts of money for their properties. Others say that people's homes matter, and that development can—and should—proceed around what still stands.

"Why can't they go ahead and develop the rest of the land?" Oldham says. "Let's move ahead and do something for the city." He says he doesn't see "any specific evidence as to how the city could benefit from the destruction" of remaining homes, but he says the current mess is discouraging investment in the city.

Chalk still envisions a vibrant neighborhood near the park and river—a hotel, high-end condos, a museum, and small retail centers, along with most of the remaining structures. "We don't have to tear everything down," she says.

Of course the original plan could be changed, Joplin says, but it shouldn't be. Leaving the remaining structures would "impact the plan by as much as 30 percent, and that's not realistic," he says. "It's time to rebuild the city."

Sign up for our free weekly e-newsletter >>

Recent Stories