Earlier this year, the Legislature executed a taking of its own - it took the power of eminent domain away from redevelopment agencies. That means an RDA, which Utah cities often use to subsidize economic development, cannot condemn property, that is, force an owner to sell.

So rest easy, Utahns. The Legislature's got your back.

People are concerned after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday that economic development falls within the meaning of "public use" in the language of the Fifth Amendment. That part of the Constitution says that government may not take private property for public use without just compensation.

In this case, people in New London, Conn., had argued that their city could not condemn their property to include it in a river-front redevelopment project. The homes in question weren't run-down, but the city said it needed the real estate to make its plan for new offices, homes, a park and marina work.

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, held that it would defer to the city's decision as to what public needs justify the use of its takings power. In this case, the jobs and larger tax base that the project would create would benefit the community as a whole, not just a private developer, and so would serve a "public purpose."

The court also said, however, that states may place further restrictions on the taking power. That's just what the Utah Legislature has done.

The problem with RDAs is that they are double-edged. The have helped to redevelop entire blocks of downtown Salt Lake City, often to the public good. The Gallivan Center and the Delta Center both were redeveloped with the help of RDAs. (So was the Gateway, which houses The Tribune's new offices.)

But RDAs also have been abused in Utah. Opponents argue, correctly, that RDAs often subsidize one private property owner or business to the detriment of others. Instead of creating new retail activity, they sometimes just move it around.

There are situations in which RDAs should have condemnation power. If that need arises, Utah's Legislature can change the law. That's the wisdom in the Supreme Court's decision. It allows local leaders, who are accountable to voters, some flexibility.