How’s this for connectable dots: a multi-billion dollar private development project that would rely on the government’s use of eminent domain to acquire all the necessary land; a bill working its ways through Congress to cut off federal development money for states or cities that use eminent domain for private development projects; and more than $54 million in federal development money for the state that would be at risk if both the project and the bill proceed. These three points draw a line to potential trouble for a major development project in Brooklyn.

That line points straight at the proposed Atlantic Yards project. The chief executive of development company Forest City Ratner, Bruce Ratner, has proposed converting a 22-acre site in Brooklyn centered around a Long Island Rail Road yard into a complex of apartments, commercial space, and a sports arena. Most of the land is either owned by the MTA or individuals or companies who have already agreed to sell their parcels to the developer. But some of it, including three residential buildings, is owned at least in part by people who have said they will not go quietly. While a debate rages over the virtue of building such a project in the first place (for our part we’re happy to see private investment in Brooklyn), it is growing increasingly likely that some arm of the government, possibly the Empire State Development Corporation, will have to use eminent domain to assemble the site on which to build the development.

Enter the House of Representatives. Earlier this month a bipartisan coalition, including Rep. Major Owens, in whose district the Atlantic Yards project would be built, overwhelmingly passed the Private Property Rights Protection Act that we detailed in our November 2 editorial “Back to Basics.” The House bill would close the tap on federal development money to states or cities that abuse eminent domain by using it to transfer property from one private owner to another for projects, well, like Atlantic Yards. It is now in the Senate Judiciary Committee where it joins a similar bill introduced by Senator Cornyn of Texas; the Cornyn bill, however, would only cut off federal money for individual projects that abused eminent domain. A spokesman for the House Judiciary Committee that drafted the more expansive bill, Terry Shawn, told The New York Sun that a key chunk of the money at stake would be Community Development Block Grants distributed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. New York State itself received more than $54 million in these grants in 2005; New York City received more than $200 million.

Would the Atlantic Yards project run afoul of either of prospective laws? It might. A spokesman for Forest City Ratner, Joseph DePlasco, told us in an e-mail that the developer does not anticipate an impact on the project, although he did not respond to a message asking him to elaborate on precisely why. Others aren’t nearly as confident that the project would stay on the right side of the law. A spokesman for Ratner opponents Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, Daniel Goldstein, suggests that if the House bill passes, the state would need to consider the risks of seizing property for the project. The Manhattan Institute’s Nicole Gelinas reckons the project could run into trouble depending on how Congress – or perhaps, eventually, the courts – choose to define several loopholes in the current versions of the bills.

The House bill would provide an exception allowing transfers to private owners who would “remove harmful uses of land provided such uses constitute an immediate threat to public health and safety.” This appears to be a narrower version of the old “blight” exception that would likely be invoked in the Atlantic Yards project, although Ms. Gelinas notes that the devil may lie in how narrowly or broadly “immediate threat to public health and safety” is defined. Appeals to “public health” were used in bygone decades to justify razing predominantly black neighborhoods, the president of the Property Rights Foundation of America, Carol LaGrasse, points out.

Further muddying the water is the way eminent domain is most often exercised in New York. Usually the power is delegated to public authorities, a state assemblyman who supports eminent domain reform but opposes the House bill, Richard Brodsky, notes. The fact that an unelected agency would be making the decision, instead of a governor or city council, could change who gets punished for abuses under the law and how much federal aid they need to forego. For his part, Mr. Brodsky has been advocating a reform at the state level that would require the local legislature, in this case the city council, to approve the use of eminent domain. Timing could also matter; if eminent domain were invoked in Brooklyn before a bill is signed into law, the new law wouldn’t make any difference.

Given the potential implications for Brooklyn, New Yorkers will be keeping an eye on the Senate Judiciary Committee when it takes up these eminent domain bills, probably next year. That will mean keeping an especially close watch on Senator Schumer, a member of the committee. Mr. Schumer has publicly endorsed the Atlantic Yards project before. He also has been consistently – and, for him, surprisingly – quiet on the broader issue of eminent domain abuse; a spokesman didn’t respond to our requests for comment this week. Depending on how negotiations proceed in committee, he could have to choose between a popular, bipartisan bill protecting property rights and a favorite development project.