Discussion in the S.C. House this week could lead to a proposal that runs counter to a well-thought-out public policy approved in the Senate that would allow voters to constitutionally restrict the taking of property to a public use.

The upshot is that the House proposal could hamstring local governments, utilities, colleges and state agencies to use eminent domain. It would so severely limit the use of property that it has the effect of taking property.

Americans were outraged over the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. New London, which basically said that local governments could take a person's property if its use could be turned into a higher tax base -- a public benefit as opposed to a public use.

Federal and state constitutions recognize the power of government to condemn private property and take it for a justified public use -- a highway, for instance. But in the Kelo decision, the court said that a community could take a person's land and allow a company to build a mall.

According to The Associated Press, "The (S.C.) House version would severely limit condemnation powers from the State Ports Authority and public colleges as well as raise the standards that utilities use to get property to run transmission lines. It also would require governments to pay landowners if their property values are affected by new laws or regulations, such as zoning."

Heretofore the S.C. Supreme Court has held that eminent domain could be used only for a public use. But as several lawmakers have noted, the Supreme Court could change its outlook as judges retire.

Previous proposals in the House would:

Restrict the governmental authorities that could use it;

Refine the term "public use"; and

Limit when it could be used for economic development purposes.

The Senate version seems best. It should be invoked only for bona fide public uses. But it shouldn't hamstring legitimate uses.