Back in 2005, I remember being appalled by the Supreme Court's decision in this case. There are a lot of factors to consider, of course, but in my opinion, invoking "eminent domain" should involve either the taking of distressed properties, or the construction of some very worthwhile public infrastructure or project.

Essentially, the local authorities applied eminent domain to take residential properties away from small private owners and transfer them them to another private owner, a large private owner, for private development. The small private owners had in many cases, owned their property for generations, but the locality, New London, preferred that the property be taken and redeveloped according to a plan prepared for Pfizer, the pharmaceutical giant.

One owner, Susette Kelo, sued to keep her property, and the case was eventually decided in the Supreme Court. What I didn't know at the time was that Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer voted to allow the taking of the property. I am well aware that New London, indeed much of New England has been in tough shape, but that the so-called liberal wing of the court would come to such a decision is galling to me.

That Pfizer pulled out of the project once the tax breaks ended is instructive, to say the least. A NY Times blog offers several opinions:

A Turning Point for Eminent Domain?

Paul Bass:

The lesson learned in the City of New London's Fort Trumbull neighborhood -- or what was once the Fort Trumbull neighborhood -- is that urban liberals make mistakes, big mistakes when they stand against the little guy through the misuse of eminent domain.

These urban liberals -- the Democrats running New London at the time -- thought they could build a "better" neighborhood by destroying generations of individual investment. And they used government power, the power of eminent domain, to do it. Eminent domain makes sense when used for public safety, but it doesn't make sense when it means giving already powerful interests an advantage in real estate development.

Now the homes are gone and vast acres remain abandoned. Not only is Pfizer not building the new neighborhood it promised, it is closing its research and development headquarters and moving 1,400 jobs out of town.

Dana Berliner:

No one should be surprised by the aftermath of the Kelo case -- neither the fact that absolutely nothing has been built on the land nor the fact that Pfizer is now pulling out of New London altogether.

The evidence at trial showed that nothing would be built on that land. The developer (who has now left the project) did a study showing there was no market for the biotech office buildings the city claimed would replace the homes. But the courts didn't want to look at that evidence. If they had, Susette Kelo would still be in her home and the rest of us would be safe from eminent domain abuse.

Nor is it surprising that Pfizer has now pulled out. The company took advantage of the phenomenal tax break when it was there and is pulling out just before it ends. The deal and the project didn't make any financial sense for a private company, and no one would have agreed to it without a huge subsidy.

Matthew J. Festa:

New London will be "Exhibit A" for the argument that taking private property for redevelopment projects -- especially projects that depend on one big private entity that is free to leave town -- is not only unfair but bad policy as well.

The legal rationale of Kelo remains intact, but perhaps courts will be less easily persuaded by the comprehensiveness of a proposed redevelopment plan when hearing challenges to eminent domain. The Supreme Court was clearly influenced by the master plan in Kelo, but lawyers in future cases will surely point to the fact that New London's plan ultimately failed.

Ilya Somin:

Far from producing the promised "development," the condemnation of private property in New London under Kelo damaged the local economy by destroying homes and businesses and wasting taxpayer money.

This result should not have been surprising. Government planners who undertake "economic development" condemnations have strong incentives to approve takings that benefit well-connected interest groups, even if they end up destroying more development than they create. Usually, as in Kelo, those targeted for condemnation are poor or politically weak.

So with Pfizer leaving, what do we have on site now?