For a guy who has come up with a dumb idea or two in my lifetime, let me tip my hat to the U.S. Supreme Court over its recent ruling that gives local governments the authority to seize people’s homes and businesses for private economic development.

The 5-4 ruling, handed down by the court last month, is heartless and only opens the way for developers to bulldoze private residences to build shopping malls, hotel complexes, and stadiums, all in the name of generating tax revenue.

The case, first brought to the court by a group of working-class Connecticut residents fighting to stave off a builder’s plans to construct a large office complex near their home, has even greater implications for a city like New York, where development seems to never end.

And now locals from Bronx to Brooklyn whose homes are situated close to where new development projects will be built worry that their most valuable possession could come crashing down right before their eyes.

The ruling, favored by some of the court’s most liberal members, has been denounced by many civil rights and environmental organizations, which argue that the decision would adversely impact poor and working-class communities of color. Even President Clinton chimed in last week, calling the court’s decision “wrong.”

Over the past decade, working-class communities of color have become ripe for wealthy white developers looking to further gentrify neighborhoods that no one wanted to invest in just a decade ago. Too often, many of those who live in these communities lack the adequate political clout to fight off well-endowed developers who spend lots of money trying to convince local politicians that knocking down a home to make room for a large-scale project would be in the best interest of the city.

The whole idea is disgusting and further contributes to the cultural decay that minority neighborhoods now face.

It’s also an abuse of the Fifth Amendment – a provision that was created to allow government to seize private property for the good of the public.

You have to marvel at the idea that another chain department store or bland office building justifies knocking down the walls of a home that a couple has lived in all of their lives.

The court’s decision has already had a chilling impact in communities such as Harlem, where residents like Stanley Wood and his 83-year-old mother remain uncertain about the future of their home after Columbia University announced efforts several years ago to expand its Morningside Heights campus into Harlem.

“Will they use eminent domain?” he asked. “It’s something that I’ve been wondering about for some time now.”

And in Brooklyn, a group of committed residents are fighting to keep developer Bruce Ratner at bay.

Mr. Ratner plans to build a high-rise arena complex for the New Jersey Nets in Prospect Heights, a project that has the support of Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Pataki.

If approved, 13 of the 24 acres needed to construct the project would be acquired through eminent domain.

In her dissenting opinion, retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, a moderate on the court, was right when she said, “Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random.” She added: “The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.”

Representatives of Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, the activists fighting Mr. Ratner’s project, say that they will challenge his use of eminent domain in the courts.

“If Ratner uses eminent domain, it will be up to him to make the case that the neighborhood is blighted, which it is patently not, or the project makes economic sense, which is pure fantasy,” a spokesman for the group, Daniel Goldstein said. “We will pursue all legal channels available to us, and we are confident that a court of law will see the project for the boondoggle that it is.”

Now that the court has effectively given states jurisdiction over how best to deal with the eminent domain issue, New York should follow the lead of other states, such as Utah, that recently signed into law a bill banning the use of eminent domain for economic development for once and for all.

Mr. Watson is the executive editor of the New York Amsterdam News. He can be reached at jamalwats@aol.com.