Property-rights advocates condemned the Supreme Court's split decision today

allowing a local government to seize a home or business against the owner's

will for the purpose of private development.

"It's a dark day for American homeowners," said Dana Berliner, senior

attorney with the Institute for Justice,

which represented a group of Connecticut residents in the case.

"While most constitutional decisions affect a small number of people,

this decision undermines the rights of every American, except the most

politically connected," Berliner said. "Every home, small business or church

would produce more taxes as a shopping center or office building. And

according to the court, that's a good enough reason for eminent domain."

The 5-4 ruling went against the owners of homes targeted for destruction

to make room for an office complex.

TRENDING: Alleged attacker behind carnage at pro-Trump event linked to 'Caravan 4 Justice' group

Susette Kelo was among several residents of New London, Conn., who sued

the city after officials announced plans to raze their homes for a

riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

"I was in this battle to save my home and, in the process, protect the

rights of working class homeowners throughout the country," Kelso said. "I

am very disappointed that the court sided with powerful government and

business interests, but I will continue to fight to save my home and to

preserve the Constitution."

The debate centered on the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows

governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is

for "public use."

Until now, that has been interpreted to mean projects such as roads,

schools and urban renewal. But New London officials argued that the private

development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth, even

though the area was not blighted.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing in dissent, said cities shouldn't be

allowed to uproot a family in order to accommodate wealthy developers.

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party,

but the fallout from this decision will not be random," O'Connor wrote. "The

beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate

influence and power in the political process, including large corporations

and development firms."

O'Conner was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist

and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens said, "The city has

carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide

appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited

to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue."

He was joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader

Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

RELATED: Obama to give Manhattan back to Native Americans?

Chip Mellor, president of the Institute for Justice, said both the

majority and the dissent recognized that the action in this issue now turns

to state supreme courts where the public-use battle will be fought out under

state constitutions.

"Today's decision in no way binds those courts," he said.

Mellor said his group will work to ensure the property owners in New

London keep their homes.

"This is a terrible precedent that must be overturned by this court, just

as bad state supreme court eminent domain decisions in Michigan and Illinois

were later overturned by those courts," he said.

Another homeowner in the case, Mike Cristofaro, has owned property New

London for more than 30 years.

"I am astonished that the court would permit the government to throw out

my family from their home so that private developers can make more money,"

he said. "Although the court ruled against us, I am very proud of the fight

we waged for my family and for the rights of all Americans."

The Institute for Justice says more than 10,000 private properties have

been threatened or condemned in recent years.

The neighborhood slated for destruction includes Victorian-era houses and

some small businesses that have remained in a family for several

generations.

The residents are entitled to "just compensation" for their homes under

the Fifth Amendment.