For all the press and sound bites emanating from the Kelo v. City of New London decision, British author G. K. Chesterson had it best back in 1907 when he wrote, "Thieves respect property. They merely wish the property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect it."

The quote is from a passage in The Man Who Would Be Thursday in which a policeman rails against modern high mindedness. "The most dangerous criminal now is the entirely lawless modern philosopher," he says.

That's prescient stuff for a piece of fiction written 100 years ago, especially in the context of today's property rights battles. And it is a slice to the marrow of the issue. All of us, from the farmer to the city lot owner to the commercial developer, have a philosophical vision for the proper use of property. It is property ownership and the rights that accompany it that help us keep our visions to ourselves. The Kelo v. City of New London decision wasn't a watershed decision because it made way for the use of eminent domain in economic development. That has been underway for decades through loose interpretation of what constitutes blight. The decision is significant because it signals that public agencies (and their private proxies) no longer need to prove blight even halfheartedly before they take property. All they need is a vision of higher purpose.

In one sense, farmers have had the upper hand as the use of eminent domain has evolved from pure public good to economic development. It is difficult to prove that a pasture or cornfield constitutes blight. And agriculture is, for lack of a better term, the original use. That's part of what has made the farmland holdout so profitable along the urban fringe. It's different in town. At a governor's eminent domain task force hearing in Jefferson City, Barb Geisman, St. Louis deputy mayor for development, pointed out that in a place like St. Louis most properties have been several things over history. She made a good case for the use of eminent domain when derelict properties are involved, which fits the framework of true blight. But ask the residents of Sunset Manor, a subdivision of Sunset Hills near St. Louis, what happens when their perfectly well-kept houses get in the way of a proposed shopping development.

At the same Jefferson City hearing, one Sunset Manor resident said that representatives of the developer had suggested settling on an agreeable price or the process would switch to an invocation of eminent domain. That's abuse of the process plain and simple. Perhaps the majority of nearby residentsÑpeople whose homes won't be demolishedÑare in favor of the shopping center. A shopping center would be a property they more perfectly respect. In a world where property rights still provided protection against the tyranny of the majority, it wouldn't matter.

For you in the hinterlands, where shopping centers and housing developments are no threat, don't get smug. Counties need revenue and will court industry. Environmentalists will find endangered species. Health ordinances will be erected where no health problems exist. Somewhere, someone has a higher philosophical ideal for your property. If they can convince local government it's the best use, what will you do?

Let's hope the governor's task force on eminent domain makes wise recommendations. A ban on the use of eminent domain for economic development will be a good start.