Of all the GlobeSt.com Feedback polls we've run, this was certainly the closest, with a near-even split between supporters and detractors of eminent domain. (Supporters edged out the opposition, by the way, with a mere 51% majority.) It's a complex issue, of course, and one that will continue to elicit lively, often passionate debate. Commentator Peter G. Verniero takes a more studied, measured approach.

"Eminent domain means different things to different people, because the cases themselves are unique. The Kelo case, which gathered a lot of attention nationwide, had a specific set of facts. The definition for citizens focusing on that case alone is naturally informed by that case alone. But there are other cases that are very different One of the reasons we have such a strong debate now is because there are differing definitions and perceptions.

"I reflect more of a judicial perspective. As a former judge, I see eminent domain as a practice rooted in the Constitution--both federal and in many cases state constitutions--that allows the government to acquire a person's property so long as it's for public use and the owners receive just compensation. That's the Constitutional definition and that's what I think of when I hear the term.

"Now, like everything else in the Constitution, there are causes and phrases subject to dispute and controversy. What is public use? What is just compensation? To some extent, answers to those questions are developed on a case-by-case basis. The big battle in the Kelo case was over the public-use provision, and you had a majority of the court observe that public use was satisfied.

"However, a very strong dissenting group of justices disagreed. These were led by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who observed that the majority of the court had basically, as she put it, 'washed out' the public-use requirement altogether. Clarence Thomas put a finer point on it by suggesting that the Court rewrote Constitution to insert public purpose for public use, public purpose being a much broader term.

"However you feel about Kelo, it's the law of the land. And even though there have been new justices appointed--Samuel Aleto for O'Connor and chief justice John Roberts for William Rehnquist--even if the new justices hold their views it wouldn't change the outcome in a future case.

"Now, a very interesting point is that Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was part of the five-justice majority in Kelo, wrote a separate concurrent opinion. He had some cautionary notes to offer that are very important. In his view there could be a case where eminent domain was merely a pretext to favor a certain private party. If he saw that in a future case he would vote against eminent domain.

"The other important point coming out of Kelo is that Justice Robert Stephens, who actually wrote the majority opinion, made it clear that states are free to adopt more restrictive rules on eminent domain , than those found in the Constitution.

"Now, it's possible that a municipality could put some very strict limitations on development. "If that would happen, the legal analysis would shift to whatever state rules might be in place in that area."