A U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the use of eminent domain has raised new concerns that apparently will be the topic of discussion in the 2005 session of the Kansas Legislature.

State lawmakers already have introduced at least two pieces of legislation aimed at strengthening the rights of private property owners. One would put property rights protection into the state constitution.

The legislators are reacting to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling this summer that the power of eminent domain can be used to take private property for private economic development projects. It has been common practice for many years for governments to condemn and take private property for public uses such as highways and libraries. But the Supreme Court now has ruled that governments also can force property owners to sell their property to make way for private economic development projects if officials decide a project would benefit the public.

The specific case considered by the court involved plans in New London, Conn., to cover 90 acres of waterfront property with office buildings, upscale housing, a marina and other facilities. The property that was to be condemned was privately owned and didn’t qualify as blighted, but because the private development of the property was expected to generate jobs and bring the city $680,000 in additional property tax revenue, the destruction of the homes was deemed to be in the public interest.

The home owners fought the measure, but the Supreme Court’s ruling cleared the way for the development project.

It’s easy to see why people are concerned their property could be seized for about any purpose government officials perceive as a higher public use. And this concept isn’t foreign to Kansas. To a group of property owners in Wyandotte County, the Connecticut case looks all too familiar.

They are the 165 property owners whose land was condemned and taken to make way for the Kansas Speedway in the late 1990s. Officials say what has turned out to be a highly successful development at the intersection of Interstates 70 and 435 could never have happened without the use of eminent domain. That may be true, but where do we draw the line? The looser interpretation of the eminent domain laws seems to put about any property at risk. The needs of the broader community are important, but they must be balanced against the rights of private property owners.

The legislative debate is likely to cut across traditional political and ideological lines. Conservative legislators, for instance, may be torn between supporting business and supporting private property rights.

Because every case is different, it will be hard to write legislation that tightens the eminent domain laws without making it too hard to apply the law to projects that are necessary and truly benefit the community. But legislators are right to take a look at this issue and try to adjust the balance to provide some additional protection for private property.