Recent action by Utah lawmakers to limit cities' use of eminent domain in general will likely mitigate a decision Thursday by the U.S. Supreme Court that cities may use it specifically for economic development.

Some government officials and legal experts here called the 5-4 decision a huge blow to the U.S. property rights ideal; others said as a practical matter, the ruling won't mean much.

"Fair compensation" is still required for the seized property under the Fifth Amendment, which permits eminent domain to be imposed as long as it's for "public use." A majority of the court on Thursday concluded that public use was properly defined more broadly as "public purpose" and expanded it to include economic development.

Dissenting Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said the ruling expanded the power of "those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms. Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party."

The court also, however, ruled that state legislators may tighten eminent-domain laws — which Utah lawmakers did during this year's general session, stripping redevelopment agencies of any eminent-domain power.

Property-rights experts nonetheless see the ruling as the government getting more power over a fundamental right provided by the Constitution.

Craig Call, with the state Department of Natural Resources and the state's only private-property ombudsman, believes the ruling makes private-property rights the "poor cousin" to other constitutional rights.

"It is significant," he said. "It marks a continual erosion of the protections that the courts are willing to offer" property owners.

"Nobody wants their mother moved out of a home of 60 years because they get more tax out of it," Call said.

That scenario probably won't happen in Utah, however, at least not until the Legislature changes the RDA laws to allow for eminent domain.

The RDA is "really the only economic development tool" cities can utilize, said Wilf Sommerkorn, director of community and economic development for Davis County.

Eminent domain was taken away under SB184, which also placed a one-year moratorium on RDAs for retail development and prohibited them for stadiums and other sports facilities.

While an RDA can still be developed if all sellers are willing, "it's very difficult to accomplish an RDA without eminent domain if you are dealing with multiple property owners," Sommerkorn said.

Inevitably, there are always a few hold-outs, whether it is the longtime resident or a seller who wants to avoid federal capital-gains taxes by having their property condemned.