Government's ability to take private property for economic development barely survived in Friday's historic ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The tool can be useful if administered wisely. State and local officials should use the power sparingly and only when the public benefits are clear and substantial. It will be the public's responsibility to hold them accountable.

Key to the 5-4 ruling was the point expressed by Justice Paul Stevens, who said local officials, not federal judges, know best how to assess whether a project is for "public use."

Public officials long have used the power of eminent domain to take property for highways and railroad tracks and similar projects deemed in the public's interest under the Fifth Amendment.

But until Thursday's ruling, questions remained on how far the government could go in other cases in which the public's interest was not as clear-cut.

The answer?

"It's not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area," Stevens wrote.

The issue is one with which local residents are familiar. The potential use of eminent domain for a John Q. Hammons hotel project at 17th and Q streets created turmoil earlier this year.

Interestingly enough, local officials chose a different course than the one taken by officials involved in the court case. The Lincoln City Council decided to forego the use of eminent domain to help Hammons assemble property for the project.

New London, Conn., officials not only chose to use eminent domain, they fought for the right all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The project was created in response to the closure of a Navy base that had employed 1,500 people. The city wanted to put together a tract of land that would use the former Fort Trumball property, plus some adjacent homes and other property, for a huge redevelopment project to include a $300 million research center, marinas, a riverwalk, hotel space, condos and offices.

One of the thorniest issues in the case was government seizure of private homes for the project.

Eminent domain has been used for economic development in Lincoln for a variety of projects, including the Centrum in the 1970s and the so-called Block 35 project, which stalled for years until the Embassy Suites hotel was build in the 1990s.

Unlike the New London project, those efforts did not involve government seizure of private homes, one of the thorniest issues in the court case. "It's a little shocking to realize you can lose your home in this country," said New London resident Bill Von Winkle.

Dissenters on the court also pointed out the ruling favored the wealthy and politically connected. "(T)hese losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities," wrote Justice Clarence Thomas. "Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton," wrote Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

It's important to remember, however, that government is required under the Constitution to provide fair compensation when it takes private land from owners.

And public officials still don't have the right to take property any time they want. They still must be able to establish to local satisfaction that taking private property is in the public interest. And they still have to answer to voters, who understandably will be wary of schemes that transfer property from one private owner to another.