HARTFORD, July 12 - It should be familiar ground for Democrats, defending the little guy against big-money interests, but on the question of whether a string of modest waterfront homes in New London, Conn., should be seized by the government for private development, the Democrats dithered while the Republicans charged into battle.
On June 23, the United States Supreme Court ruled that fostering economic development is an appropriate use of the government's power of eminent domain. The 5-4 decision cleared the way for the city of New London to replace 15 homes in a neighborhood known as Fort Trumbull with a sprawling project that includes a conference hotel to be built by private developers.
Connecticut has long had laws allowing municipalities and the state to seize private property for economic development. But the widespread publicity about the New London case and the subsequent Supreme Court ruling have put a spotlight on the issue. From the backyard fence to the radio waves, people are expressing sympathy for the New London home owners and concerns that their own homes are vulnerable in the name of economic development.
The reaction of some lawmakers, on the other hand, has been less easy to characterize. Republicans in the Democratic-controlled legislature have taken the lead since Connecticut's Supreme Court first ruled against the New London homeowners last year, three times proposing amendments that would restrict the use of eminent domain for economic development. All failed.
Immediately after last month's Supreme Court ruling, Democrats still had little to say, with one leader, Donald E. Williams Jr., the Senate president pro tempore, suggesting that the General Assembly wait until next year to examine the state laws.
Now, almost three weeks after the ruling, Democrats have asked for municipalities to wait before changing local eminent domain ordinances while legislative leaders consider whether to call a special session to look at the issue. The Republicans have been more emphatic, saying they want a moratorium on property seizures and a special session.
On Monday, Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a Republican, chimed in with a defiant note, likening the use of eminent domain for economic development to the "21st-century equivalent of the Boston Tea Party."
"But this time, it is not a monarch wearing robes in England we are fighting - it is five robed justices at the Supreme Court in Washington," she said in a statement released by her office.
This was quite a change in tone from the day of the ruling, when she stopped of short of criticizing it and said the Connecticut legislature "ought to" consider it. But the usually cautious Mrs. Rell is now squarely behind the fight to limit the use of eminent domain, an issue that resonates deeply with homeowners around the country.
"Home ownership is often referred to as 'the American Dream,' " she said. "Our homes are the places where we raise our families and build our lives. When government intrudes on our homes, it must have a defensible reason. In the New London case, the reason was not defensible."
Some Democratic leaders also vacillated.
The state attorney general, Richard Blumenthal, who is considered a leading Democratic candidate should he seek to run for governor, initially praised the decision of the nation's highest court, as "vindicating long-established eminent domain principles." However, one day after the ruling, he said that Connecticut's eminent domain law deserved "serious, critical scrutinizing."
"We must make sure that it protects private property rights and adequately defines the public interests that taking private property must serve," he said in a statement issued by his office.
House Speaker James A. Amann, a Democrat, said on Tuesday, "We certainly don't agree with the Supreme Court," but he could not explain why the legislature had defeated three Republican proposals to restrict the ability of municipalities from taking property for private development.
His Democratic colleague, Michael Lawlor, a state representative who is co-chairman of the judiciary committee, described the earlier proposals as "too simplistic," noting that the state has dozens of statutes that authorize the seizure of private property through eminent domain.
"You can't just shoot from the hip," he said. "The worst thing we could do is approve something that sounds good but leaves homeowners vulnerable."