That's one way of looking at it. The other way is to look at Article VI. If state and local laws conflict with the U.S. Constitution, and the laws and treaties made under it, then the U.S. Constitution is supreme. If they do not then the state and local laws should apply. When it comes to eminent domain the wording in the state constitution is identical with the wording in the 5th Amendment. Since the U.S. Constitution does not define what constitutes public use then it should be a question for the state legislature to decide. I may not agree with the Connecticut legislature's definition of public use but I agree with the court that that question is best left to the states and not the federal government.
“I may not agree with the Connecticut legislature’s definition of public use but I agree with the court that that question is best left to the states and not the federal government.”
The Supremes did not decide that the question of what constitutes public use is best left to the States. They decided that the redevelopment of the Fort Trumbull area satisfied a “public purpose”. Thereby continuing the precedential fallacy that a “public use” equates to a “public purpose”.
From the opinion: The question presented is whether the city’s proposed disposition of this property qualifies as a “public use” within the meaning of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution.
The Supremes did not decide that the state or municipality can arbitrarily define what constitutes a public use.