Last fall, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on an important land rights case out East-Kelo v. City of New London, Conn. By virtue of the way the court handles cases, it was scheduled to deliver the verdict just about the time you'll be reading this. The case has drawn national media attention for the reasons used to invoke eminent domain. It was done in the name of economic progress.

Stemming from the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution clause, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation," eminent domain has plenty of case history to stand as an indisputable function of the state. In fact, over time, four categories of public use have been sounded. First, and probably best understood by the general public, is the pure sense of public good-land condemned to build public roads, military bases, schools and public hospitals. The second category is takings by private companies who in turn make the land available to the public. Land required by utilities to deliver service to the larger public is a common example. The third category brings with it some problems of interpretation, but is generally understood as a public good. Eminent domain can be invoked to remove "blight." It's by this use that slums are condemned. And it's the idea that blight is an economic sink that provides a gateway to the final and most controversial category-condemnation of private property to make way for economic development.

It's this evolution of "public good" that has drawn such attention to Kelo v. City of New London.

New London and its agencies employed eminent domain to acquire a 90-acre development park along the Thames River. The development project is adjacent to the New London Mills site where Pfizer has built a global research center. In arguments for the decision, representatives of New London said the development would "complement the facility Pfizer was building, create jobs, increase tax and other revenues, encourage public access to and use of the city's water front, and eventually Ôbuild momentum' for the revitalization of the rest of the city including down town."

Problems arose-there were a few land owners who didn't want to sell, especially since homes on one tract of land were slated to be razed while no plan existed to build something in their place. Local courts sided with the home owners of that tract, saying that the city had rights for eminent domain for the project, but overstepped those rights on that particular tract. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the project had to be considered in its entirety and reversed the lower court's decision, setting the path toward the U.S. Supreme Court.

Legal scholars may have plenty of arguments when eminent domain is invoked to spur economic progress, such as the subjectivity of progress and the potential that the process of eminent domain will become a who-you-know, slap-on-the-back club of investors.

To these arguments, I'll add just one question. What if the economic progress fails? For some "economic progress" projects, we'd do better asking for sunny days because we built a patio.

Public good should be universal and not favor private business. Economic activity, and by it, economic progress, is a force of social nature, not a public good. It's the realm of private enterprise. Stick to roads and bridges for eminent domain. And let private enterprise pay the proper price if its got land buying in mind.