The July 6 Daily News asked which poses a greater risk, a government that uses the power of eminent domain to do the will of its elected officials or a private investor who refuses to sell his property while endangering a city project for the sake of his personal benefit.

What worries me more is a city commission with the power to take my home, every property-owning Joe should say, especially in light of last month’s eminent-domain decision by the Supreme Court.

In Kelo v. New London, the court allows local governments to use eminent domain for the primary benefit of a developer if the secondary benefit would advance the public good.

Bowling Green City Commissioners Brian Strow, Mark Alcott and Slim Nash courageously voted July 5 to ban eminent domain for the purpose of economic development. However, Alcott transgressed by adding public projects to a long list of acceptable eminent-domain uses.

The amendment opens the eminent-domain barn door so wide that anything looking, acting or smelling like a public use can wander in. Developers need only mouth the words “public projects” while presenting a plan that appears to offer more tax revenue by condemning a home, small business or church.

Justice Sandra Day O’ Connor warned of such abuse in her blistering dissent last month.

Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall or any farm with a factory, O’Connor wrote.

If eminent domain for economic advantage is now locked up tight, perhaps the Daily News can begin a second debate by asking which is of greater benefit, elected officials who protect and defend property rights or those who want to keep their options open for public projects.

Chris Derry

Alvaton

— Derry is president of The Bluegrass Institute, a Bowling Green-based free market think tank.