In drafting and passing a limitation on the use of eminent domain powers, the Mississippi Legislature was reacting, not acting. The fact of the matter is that existing eminent domain provisions have served Mississippians adequately, if not perfectly. Gov. Haley Barbour was correct to veto the bill. State Rep. George Flaggs, D-Vicksburg, who voted for initial passage, was correct to reverse himself and not join his colleagues in an ill-informed rush to override the veto. And the Senate was correct in sustaining the governor’s position.

In the much-publicized Kelo case from 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court decided it was within the power of Connecticut authorities to force owners to sell their property to the government for immediate resale to private developers.

This conjured up notions of a town board “taking” a cherished private home and reselling it to a burger chain, based on a whim of town board members or simply a desire to generate higher tax revenues.

Around the nation, a few states started amending their laws to restrict eminent domain powers.

What’s overlooked in all this is that authorities are still accountable to voters. And if the state or any board dared engage in a deal that was clearly against the public’s interest or was outrageous, voters would rise up in protest.

The eminent domain power exists to serve rational purposes. In Mississippi, if the state or one of its lesser entities proves in court there is both a public need and a public use for private property, the interest of the private owner must be sacrificed for the greater good. This is a very necessary power, and private owners must be paid a fair value, as set by a jury if need be. Without eminent domain we would not have roads or levees or amenities such as the Vicksburg National Military Park or any of the state’s water reservoirs.

It is questionable when the government power is flexed for a private interest, such as the Nissan complex near Canton, with the public purpose being job creation. But, again, there has to be at least a modicum of trust that public officials will do the right thing and use the power with due discretion. There have been no abuses of the eminent domain power in Mississippi, and the Legislature’s attempt to draft a bill to objectively require the subjective use of good sense might have been well-intended, but could easily have done more harm than good.

“Limit government power” is a plea that resonates with most Americans. But there are certain powers essential to good government. One of them is eminent domain. There’s a risk it will be used inappropriately, ineptly or even corruptly — but the bill Barbour vetoed provided no more assurance against that than already exists.

Flaggs is especially to be commended for breaking with others in the House leadership who hoisted the flag of private property rights and tried to couch their override votes in terms of protecting the public. It was a cynical ploy and Flaggs correctly concluded that the process has sufficient safeguards and doesn’t need changing. Further, he had the courage not to be stampeded.