After drug giant Pfizer Inc. announced that it was opening a new research center here, city officials aggressively moved to acquire surrounding land for an economic development project — triggering an epic fight over eminent domain that reached the U.S. Supreme Court and ended with residents being forced from their homes.

But the land where the homes once stood has remained undeveloped, and the community took another hit last week when Pfizer, a major economic engine in the city and its largest taxpayer, announced plans to close the $350 million research center and relocate about 1,500 jobs to nearby Groton.

Now some angry and befuddled current and former residents, including some who lost their homes, say the drug company's announcement reaffirms their conviction that the city never needed to pick the property rights fight in the first place. If they have lost, they say, then so apparently has the city.

"We just got so sick of hearing that we were supposed to sacrifice for the greater good," said Matthew Dery, the sales and retention manager at The Day newspaper in New London who relocated to Waterford after being forced out of a home that had been in his family for about a century. "As it turns out, there was no greater good."

Pfizer's pharmaceutical research center, which opened in 2001, was a catalyst for a planned multimillion-dollar private development that was to include residential, hotel conference, research and development space and a new state park. City officials decided they needed 90 acres adjacent to the Pfizer center to complement the building.

Results for Tuesday's special election posted on the California's secretary of state's website showed more than 60 percent of voters rejected the five fiscal measures on the ballot.

A sixth measure barring pay increases for state officials amid deficits was approved by about 74 percent of the voters.

Surveys in recent weeks had found little support for the fiscal measures, and Schwarzenegger all but conceded defeat by joining President Obama in Washington on Tuesday for his announcement on auto emission rules instead of campaigning for the measures through election day.

In January, a smaller three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that said the Interior Department could not collect royalties from eight deepwater leases held by Anadarko Petroleum Corp. in the Gulf of Mexico. The leases were obtained between 1996 and 2000 by Kerr-McGee Corp., which Anadarko later acquired.

Government lawyers are now asking for an "en banc" review of the case, bringing it before the entire New Orleans-based 5th Circuit. A court spokesman said the circuit has 17 active judges.

At issue is interpretation of a 1995 federal law designed to provide a break from royalties at a time when oil and natural gas prices were extremely low. The law waived all royalty payments until a specific amount of oil and gas was produced.

The Interior Department has contended it had the authority to lift the royalty relief once prices reached a certain level. The law became particularly prickly as oil prices rose and oil companies began posting huge profits.