District officials expressed relief last week when a Supreme Court ruling liberally interpreted the power of eminent domain to include taking private property and re-developing it to promote economic development — a step seen as necessary for both the re-development of the Skyland strip mall and the construction of a new stadium for the Washington Nationals, both in Southeast. That feeling of relief may have been premature, though.

Members of both parties in Congress have rallied to limit the impact of the Court’s controversial ruling, with leaders on both sides of the aisle planning on introducing legislation that would deny federal funds to projects that employed the use of eminent domain for hotels, strip malls, or other such developments. In fact, the House just yesterday voted 231 to 189 for such legislation, and a similar measure is pending in the Senate. How would this affect the District?

The legislation, introduced by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), at right, and known as the Private Property Rights Protection Act, would forbid any municipality from using federal funds for any project in which land is taken by the government and given to developers for the sake of economic development. If this legislation were introduced, it may well threaten the ability of the District to issue the bonds needed to finance the stadium, set to cost over $500 million. The bonds, which are tax-free, set at a low interest rate, and widely used in the construction of stadiums, have cost the U.S. Treasury Department over $100 million in lost taxes since 1990, and in the case of the District, would keep over $3 million in taxes from Treasury coffers — something a motivated stadium opponent could argue amounts to a federal subsidy. The result? The District would be forbidden from issuing the needed bonds, preventing a stadium from being built.

Much the same may happen with the Skyland Shopping Center, a 1950s development in Southeast that District officials have been eyeing for years as a site for re-development. The recent Supreme Court decision gave the city a green light to proceed with the eviction of tenants and business owners who refused to sell their properties, but a move by Congress may once again swing the advantage towards the status quo.