Legislatures across the country are acting with dispatch to provide more solid property rights protections for their states' citizens. North Carolina needs to take action too.

The push for greater protection was prompted by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the infamous Kelo v. City of New London case, but the need pre-existed it.

Governments have misused eminent domain in the past. But the legal environment was unsettled. Now, armed with the Kelo ruling, government officials can seize your property if they think they have a "better" economic use for it.

As Sandra Day Justice O'Connor stated in her dissenting opinion the case, "The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory."

In a month, the General Assembly reconvenes for its short session. Its first order of business should be to submit a constitutional amendment to the voters to protect against these economic-development takings and to prohibit other eminent domain abuse.

Fortunately, despite restrictions on what can be introduced and considered in the short session, there is an exception for constitutional amendments.

Unfortunately, a constitutional amendment may not get passed unless some legislators step up and take the lead to protect the property rights of North Carolinians.

The House Select Committee on Eminent Domain Powers, created by House Speaker Jim Black, has yet to seriously discuss or propose major reforms. In fact, both co-chairs reportedly are opposed to a constitutional amendment. The committee's recent draft bill certainly provides better compensation for eminent domain victims, but this is a far cry from what is necessary. One hopes the committee is just warming up.

• • •

An amendment is necessary because statutes are an uncertain protection. They can be changed. Decisions about property often involve time horizons in the decades, not just months or years. Property owners deserve a set of clear and certain rules, rules that they know cannot simply be "adjusted" by a future legislature.

The public clearly agrees. A recent Civitas Institute poll found that 73 percent of North Carolina respondents support a constitutional amendment, while only 24 percent oppose one.

Other states already are taking the lead on providing constitutional protections for their citizens.

Michigan's legislature overwhelmingly passed a constitutional amendment that will be placed on the November ballot. The vote was 106-0 in the House and 31-6 in the Senate. At least six other states -- including South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and Florida -- are moving forward with amendments.

If this wasn't enough, North Carolina has some of the weakest constitutional protections for property rights in the country. Our property rights are dictated by whatever is the "law of the land." Basically North Carolina has punted to the federal Constitution and federal judiciary on the issue of property rights.

After Kelo, is this really such a smart move? The state constitution doesn't even expressly prohibit the seizure of private property without just compensation.

Furthermore, the state needs a narrow definition of "public use." According to the Fifth Amendment of the federal Constitution, the government can only seize private property if it is for a "public use." "Public use" has traditionally been thought to mean the transfer of private property for public ownership (such as for roads) or for use by the public (such as for railroads or utilities). Over the years, courts have broadened the definition of "public use" to also include seizures of private property that are for a "public benefit" or "public purpose." These overbroad interpretations are what led to the Kelo decision.

Almost every state is considering laws (legislation or constitutional amendments) that redefine and narrow "public use." At a minimum, North Carolina needs its law to expressly prohibit the seizure of private property for economic development purposes (Kelo-type takings). It also needs to ensure that the state's overbroad and subjective urban redevelopment statute can't be used as a backdoor way to get around any prohibition, as it could be right now.

This is a critical time for anyone who owns or ever will own property in North Carolina. Major reforms are needed, starting with a constitutional amendment that protects our property rights. Tinkering with the eminent domain laws is not sufficient.

(Daren Bakst, an attorney, is legal and regulatory policy analyst for the John Locke Foundation in Raleigh.)

Get $150+ in coupons in every Sunday N&O. Click here for convenient home delivery.