Conversations about eminent domain don’t often pop up around the Bentayous’ dinner table.

But then no government has ever tried to take our home and replace it with something better to serve the public good.

People who undergo such trauma say the sadness, insecurity and bristling uncertainty can rattle in memory for a lifetime.

Consider Jill and Mark Timieski. Both have stayed active in efforts to restrict eminent domain since 2004, when they worked to rescue a neighborhood in Lakewood, Ohio, from destruction to make room for high-end condos and shops.

When Jill was a child, her family lost their home to what became a great public amenity, Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area in northeast Ohio.

Mark’s boyhood home and others were earmarked for demolition to make way for part of a freeway. Public protest killed the road.

His parents still live in the house, but “for a long time, we were unsure of our future. It’s not a comfortable thing,” he said.

But, of course. People attach to homes. The sanctity of ownership is deeply ingrained in America. In fact, it was a central issue in the nation’s founding.

Balancing property rights against the broader public good of, say, highway improvements, mass transit or much-needed housing for the poor is a tough call, even when the displaced receive fair-market compensation.

So when is eminent domain just? When not? The questions bang around a lot these days.

A 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2005 backed New London, Conn., in condemning a neighborhood to make way for a corporate headquarters that would increase the city’s tax base.

Riviera Beach, Fla., plans to raze thousands of modest houses, in part through eminent domain, to build fancy homes and shops over 15 years – again, boosting taxes.

Displacing people from their homes to upgrade a neighborhood, said Peter Dreier, professor of politics at Occidental College in Los Angeles, “often involves an abuse of government power.”

Julia Vitullo-Martin, a researcher with the conservative Manhattan Institute, thinks cities considering eminent domain face a possibility of “a very basic injustice. Government has to be extremely careful in taking someone’s property.”

Alexander Von Hoffman, a researcher at Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Study, said, “Using eminent domain to take property from the poor and powerless, then handing it to corporations is ethically problematic.” It puts the government in “an inherent conflict of interest” and can expose public officials to corrupting influences.

The U.S. Congress and many state legislatures are considering laws aimed at reeling in eminent-domain measures that many see as abusive and insensitive.

That idea is scary, too. This legal tool can have good uses, benefiting many.

Storm-devastated New Orleans could use eminent domain to help rebuild one of the country’s most distinctive cities. Stressed Cleveland and its suburbs should keep the tool handy for fair and reasoned use.

But it’s every resident’s job to assure the balancing point between property rights and public good gets fair hearing in the community.

Whenever we get cozy in our homes, over dinner, say, that’s a time to think about those tossed out of theirs – and whether what the community receives in return is worth their loss.