In fact, City Councilman Steve Peterson worries that parts of the 50-acre village-redevelopment project may not be able to proceed without eminent domain.

"Any kind of redevelopment is not comfortable for all parties," he said. "But in order for the greater good to be served, we need a mechanism to acquire property and rights of way to bring it to pass."

If the council does resort to condemnation, it will be breaking a promise.

In September 2005, the council, in its role as the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Board, assured residents that, if cities regained the right to use eminent domain for economic development, the tool never would be part of the village project.

State lawmakers reinstated that power this year, and Peterson hopes to amend the village plan to include it.

Without eminent domain, he warned, someone cognizant of the city's redevelopment plans could purchase property to hold up the project.

Peterson was the lone vote in 2005 against nixing the use of eminent domain - government condemnation of private property - for Holladay's village plan.

"I never wanted it out and I haven't changed my position," Peterson said.

The item had been slated for discussion during today's RDA meeting but it was removed from the agenda to allow for a broader discussion at a later date.

"We pulled it because people were leaving for the Easter holiday and at least two members would be absent," said Councilman Grant Orton, who noted that some members vehemently oppose even discussing the issue.

With the change in state law, there was some thought that the board should revisit condemnation, said Mayor Dennis Webb, adding that such a discussion, controversial in itself, may not happen.

"Obviously the law will allow for it," Webb said. "But right now we think there are other ways we can accomplish the purposes we need to make the village project go forward."

Still, Peterson hopes the RDA Board will address it as early as next week.

cmckitrick@sltrib.com