The right of eminent domain – that the government can take your property for the public good – grew exponentially Wednesday when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the government can seize property for private purposes.

This will open the door to all sorts of unfortunate mischief as developers turn to the coercive power of government and courts to obtain land from private owners.

The court’s ruling was opposed by its philosophic conservatives – Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Sandra Day O’Connor.

In the minority dissent, O’Connor wrote: “The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.”

The majority saw this as a simple extension of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for “public use” and if “just compensation” is given in return.

In the past, public use has been interpreted to mean land taken for direct public benefit – roads, parks, schools and the like.

Now, a city can decide that a new high-rise beachfront condo will benefit the public more than a neighborhood of old cottages.

That’s a frightening amount of power to put in the hands of elected officials.

Imagine, for instance, a town council that is under the thumb of a local developer. Or, perhaps, a town that decides a shopping center would simply return more tax money than a group of homes.

In either case, the city can seize that property from one private owner and turn it over to another private owner.

Almost anything can be justified as benefiting the public in some vague or indirect way.

The wisdom of this won’t be known for several years. We’re betting the court and the American people will come to regret this decision.