It's way too soon to breathe any final sighs of relief. But after a contentious floor debate in the House Wednesday, a constitutional amendment aimed at placing some ironclad restrictions on government's power of eminent domain now at least has a chance of getting on the November ballot.

Thanks to an effort led by Charleston Rep. Wallace Scarborough, the House did agree to remove a killer provision from the constitutional amendment. That provision involved what's called regulatory takings, a controversial concept that opponents contend could bring an end to land use planning and have wide-ranging consequences on government's well-established power to zone property. In the past, the Senate has killed such House-passed bills.

It bears emphasizing that eminent domain or condemnation of land is a separate issue from the so-called regulatory takings. Some argue that when the perceived value is land is diminished by government action, the owner should be compensated.

Both House and Senate leaders had pledged before the session even began to amend the eminent domain provision of the S.C. Constitution to ensure that no government could actually condemn public property for private use. Our state Supreme Court already has established that rule of thumb. But a shocking U.S. Supreme Court decision last year in a Connecticut case, known as Kelo, allowed the condemnation of private property for economic development because that state law allowed such condemnations for a so-called public purpose or benefit.

Legislative leaders have said while they trust our current state Supreme Court, a constitutional amendment is needed to say clearly that land may only be taken for public use and cannot be taken for public purpose or benefit. The Senate already had passed such a clear-cut amendment, one the House should have stood ready to accept. Instead, its Judiciary Committee came up with a more complicated measure that would have met an uncertain fate at the polls with the regulatory takings provision.

Now, the regulatory takings provision is on its way to the Senate as a separate piece of legislation, not a constitutional amendment. Its fate there is doubtful at best. Meanwhile, the Senate is likely to amend the House's proposed constitutional amendment with its own measure, which would send it off to a conference committee.

Sen. Chip Campsen, who authored the Senate eminent domain amendment and has studied the subject thoroughly, is on the right track. The legislature, he tells us, should take a multi-pronged approach. First, the constitutional amendment, then the enabling legislation, and then separate legislation that would deal with the blighted area problem, primarily abandoned housing. The Senate already has passed legislation calling for a study on which of the 55 government agencies that now have the power to condemn property should retain that authority.

As for the constitutional amendment itself, Sen. Campsen believes the trick is to keep it simple. He is concerned that the House's proposed constitutional amendment is still too broad. He just wants to ensure that government can't ever take public property for anything but public use. "We need to hit Kelo with a smart bomb," he said, "not a carpet bomb" that could have unintended consequences.

Lawmakers should keep in mind the promises they made about ensuring that the eminent domain law is air-tight against government misuse and pass Sen. Campsen's "smart bomb" version of the constitutional amendment without further distractions.