Mayor Bloomberg is stepping up his campaign to prevent lawmakers in Albany and Washington from restricting the city’s power to seize private property for redevelopment.

In recent weeks, Mr. Bloomberg has traveled to Washington to meet with members of Congress on the issue. He also convened a group of 100 Manhattan-based political donors for a lunch at which he handed out a wallet card of priorities, including “Eminent Domain – Oppose legislation that would cripple affordable housing and responsible re-development (like Times Square).”

Yesterday, he brought the campaign to an event in the Times Square neighborhood, which he argues couldn’t have been cleaned up without eminent domain power – a portrayal challenged by some critics.

“Times Square really was the poster child for a seedy, dangerous, unattractive, porno-laced place,” the mayor said after announcing a renovation of Duffy Square at 47th Street. “Because of eminent domain and some forward-looking people in this city, they turned it into a place where 24 hours a day you’re safe on the street.”

Debate over the use of eminent domain has flared since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June 2005 that the city of New London, Conn., had the right to use eminent domain power to take property from homeowners and give it to a developer. The justices split on the case, Kelo v. New London, 5-4. Both Democrats and Republicans moved to protect private property rights after the Supreme Court’s decision.

Those who oppose the use of eminent domain for private development – as opposed to long-standing government uses – challenged the mayor’s portrayal of history. They said private property seizures were not the driving force behind the cleanup of Times Square and that the landmark site would have turned around without it. A civil rights attorney, Norman Siegel, said new zoning laws and market forces were both crucial to the revitalization.

“When people like the mayor engage in this kind of advocacy, it doesn’t represent the reality,” he said. “Times Square could have been completed without the use of eminent domain.”

Citing Columbia University’s expansion project and the Nets arena project in Brooklyn, Mr. Siegel said the use of eminent domain for private development has “run amok” in New York.

Others echoed that sentiment. A senior attorney at a libertarian law firm, the Institute for Justice, said it’s no surprise that city officials want to preserve their power to seize private property.

“New York is one of the worst states in the country for using eminent domain for private development, and it has a history of using it for very wealthy and powerful private parties,” Dana Berliner said.

While Mr. Bloomberg has already made it known that he supports the use of eminent domain for private development when a neighborhood is “blighted,” his comments yesterday were his most forceful to date and signal that he is readying for a fight on eminent domain in much the same way he has entered national political debates on gun control and abortion.

He spoke yesterday against proposed legislation in Congress that would restrict the city’s use of federal money for projects that involve eminent domain.

The mayor has the support of some lawmakers. Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat who represents Manhattan’s West Side and parts of Brooklyn, said the bills being considered in Congress will “destroy the ability of this city and any other city to have economic development and revitalize itself.”

Mr. Nadler said protections against abuse are needed, but not by “the kind of draconian, one-sided legislation” that will hinder cities from improving so-called blighted neighborhoods.

Mr. Bloomberg’s comments come as lawmakers in Albany are finishing up the state budget and are expected to devote attention to eminent domain.

Mr. Bloomberg, a Republican, said there are “misguided people” on both sides of the aisle in both the House and the Senate. “Yes, you want to protect individual property rights, but if we didn’t have this, the city would be like it was 100 years ago. It would have fallen apart.”

Most agree that the government should be allowed to use eminent domain to seize private property for public use. The Fifth Amendment to the federal Constitution provides, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Under current law in New York, eminent domain can be used for private development if the government proves that the neighborhood is “blighted.”

Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a Democrat who represents Manhattan’s East Side, said yesterday that she supports the use of eminent domain only for public purposes. “If you’re going to built a road or a highway or a subway for public purpose, but I do not support it for a private developer for a private purpose. That draws the line for me,” she said.

Assemblyman Richard Brodsky said the issue has united “the right-wing property rights advocates and the left-wing neighborhood activists.”

Others took issue with the term “blight,” saying it’s too subjective. Mr. Brodsky said “blight is Yiddish for poor” and that it is unjust to use it on “125th Street but not on Park Avenue.”

The issue put Mr. Bloomberg in the center of yet another national debate. A professor of public policy at Baruch College, Douglas Muzzio, called Mr. Bloomberg the “mayoral Robert Moses” and said eminent domain is a powerful tool that the mayor doesn’t want to give up.

“There are those of us who remember the carnage of Robert Moses’s slum clearance,” he said. “The question here is going to be who defines blight.”