No not at all.
The Takings Clause as written is fine.
What isn't fine is the unconstitutional taking of private property for private use.
That is a fairly broad statement. Public use could be a road, school , a new court house, jail or in some cases the elimination of blight and public/private development programs like multi use buildings and even GASP casino's and shopping malls.
The fact that private development creates massively increased local taxes could be, and is by the Kelo decision, considered public use or at least the public benefit.
I am not saying I agree, but it is a drag to the dozens, hundreds or even thousands of individual property owners who where willing to accept above market rates for their land can not get that benefit because one or a handful of home owners stand in the way.
I have seen area changing development put on hold or outright eliminated because one or two home owners decided that they didn't want to sell when dozens of their neighbors not only agreed to sell, but made arrangements for other suitable housing only to be caught holding deed or debt on not one but two properties. Block parties on those streets have been less than friendly since.