The Supreme Court last week agreed to hear a case involving the ability of the government to seize private property.

Eminent domain touches on some of the core values of America’s success. The rights of individual property owners are sometimes pitted against what government defines as a collective good.

In the case before the Supreme Court, seven property owners in Connecticut are trying to keep the city of New London from seizing their homes for a redevelopment project along the Thames River.

Government’s eminent-domain powers are traditionally used to acquire property for “public use,” including roads and government buildings such as schools. But as cities and towns have worked to repair damage to their tax base and attract new sources of revenue, rules governing what counts as “public use” have loosened. In many places now, property is being seized and the land turned over to new owners, who promise more lucrative developments.

When the government exercises its power of eminent domain, it is supposed to pay full market value for the seized property in an attempt to make property owners whole.

But as recent cases in Lewiston show, just paying market price – and sometimes even above market price – does not always end hard feelings on the part of property owners who can feel they’ve been forced to make a deal, with the blackmail of eminent domain hanging over their heads if they refuse.

Lewiston Assistant City Administrator Greg Mitchell told the Sun Journal Monday that the city hasn’t used eminent domain to further economic development projects – yet. He said eminent domain had been an option when the city was trying to acquire property for the Western Gateway project, but in the end it wasn’t needed. The owner of the building that housed the Lewiston House of Pizza and Captain Morgan’s tattoo parlor eventually took the city’s offer. The possibility of seizure – evidenced by a court challenge to the condemnation of the property – was always there, though.

So far, property owners involved in the Heritage Initiative, which includes a new road connecting Lincoln and Lisbon streets and a new office building for Community Concepts along with new housing and other offices, are willing to negotiate, Mitchell said. A single property owner, however, could force the city’s hand on the 10-year project.

Lewiston has provided assistance to businesses and residents who were displaced by renewal projects in the past. In the case of Lewiston House of Pizza, the city helped the business relocate and purchase its own building in a better location. But the mere mention of seizure can raise the hackles on property rights advocates.

Mitchell told the Sun Journal that the city will be following the Supreme Court case, Kelo v. City of New London. Arguments are scheduled for early next year.

That’s a good idea. With a $4.5 million project meant to bring new development and new revenue downtown dependent on the city’s ability to coax property owners into selling, any changes in eminent domain law could reduce the city’s ability to negotiate from a position of power. For property owners, that could be a good thing.