She knows, however, that the 1893 Victorian cottage she bought eight years ago might not be standing much longer - and that its fate is in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites).

On Tuesday, the court will hear an appeal from Kelo and about a dozen other holdout owners of property near Fort Trumbull State Park. They are trying to prevent the city of New London from seizing their land to clear the way for a private development project that would include a hotel, a conference center and offices. The city has argued that redeveloping 90 acres along the river and near a new Pfizer research plant would give a much-needed economic boost to the city of about 26,000 people, where the unemployment rate of 7.6% is about twice the state's rate.

The dispute marks the first time the high court will rule on whether local governments have the power to condemn land for private enterprises aimed at boosting local tax revenue - rather than for traditional public projects such as bridges, roads and parks.

The Constitution's Fifth Amendment allows governments to seize private property in a process called eminent domain, as long as the owners receive "just compensation" and the property is for "public use." Kelo and the other property owners involved in the case say the city's plan does not represent a "public use" for the land. The city disagrees and says all the town's residents would benefit from the project.

Connecticut's Supreme Court ruled last year in favor of New London. It noted that the city's plan "is projected to create in excess of 1,000 jobs, to increase tax and other revenues and to revitalize an economically distressed city."

Mark Perry, a Washington lawyer and former clerk to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites), says state courts have been inconsistent in their interpretations of what constitutes a "public use."

A ruling in the New London case could have "ramifications for property owners and governments across the country," says Perry, who submitted a "friend of the court" brief for a California-based libertarian group, the Reason Foundation, that sides with Kelo.

New ground for high court

Governments have used eminent domain for private developments in recent years - in New York City's Times Square and at Baltimore's Inner Harbor, for example. But never has the Supreme Court, faced with an appeal from property owners, agreed to resolve the question of whether property can be transferred to private developers to boost tax revenue.

Those backing Kelo include the NAACP and AARP, which say the social harm can outweigh the public benefits when governments take property for private economic development. The groups say government efforts to lure business and spur greater revenue can disproportionately hurt the poor, the elderly and racial minorities.

Those backing New London include the National League of Cities and the National Conference of State Legislatures. They say cities should have wide latitude to take land to boost their economies and that money generated by redevelopment can help public agencies such as police and fire units.

In its ruling, the Connecticut Supreme Court emphasized that judges should give broad deference to local lawmakers. It noted that New London's development plan initially was approved by New London's City Council in 1998.

The state court cited two U.S. Supreme Court rulings, from 1954 and 1984. In the 1954 ruling, U.S. justices upheld the power of eminent domain for urban renewal in parts of Washington, D.C. Thirty years later, the high court allowed Hawaii's Legislature to condemn large tracts concentrated among a few owners - a vestige of the feudal system of the state's original Polynesian settlers - for distribution to many residents.

No amount of cash will do

In their appeal, attorneys for Kelo and the other New London property owners say the state Supreme Court "incorrectly equated 'public use' with the ordinary 'public' benefits - taxes and jobs - that typically flow from private businesses' enterprises."

Scott Bullock, an attorney for the property owners, wrote that they "do not want money or damages. They only seek to hold on to their most sacred and important of possessions: their homes."

Most owners of the 115 tracts that would be affected by the New London project took the money offered for their homes and moved.

Attorneys for the city and New London Development, a private, non-profit group established in 1978 to assist the city, said New London is "desperate for economic rejuvenation."

Wesley Horton, who will argue the case for New London, painted a bleak economic picture in his filing to the justices. He noted that the city's population has declined almost a third from about 34,000 in 1960. He also cited the city's high unemployment rate and said the area lost about 1,500 jobs when the federal government closed the U.S. Naval Undersea Warfare Center here in 1996.

In an interview, Edward O'Connell, an attorney for New London Development, said Kelo was offered $123,000 from the city, roughly fair market value for her property.

Kelo, 48, said she simply does not want to move. The nurse and mother of five grown boys said that when developers first approached her, "I had just bought the place. I never even wanted to negotiate."