[AntiGuv]

That is not true. The Supreme Court has ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not prevent local governments from seizing property for this reason. It didn't rule that the Constitution forbids the States or the Congress from prohibiting such seizures. In the case of the Congress, there would be federalism questions (which I think valid) but it's difficult to see how it wouldn't fit into the Commerce Clause as interpreted by the Court (wrongly, in my opinion, but so it is). Most especially, it doesn't prevent the Congress from amending the Constitution itself.

If the support is truly there, the laws will get amended accordingly.

[jwalsh07]

In the case of the Congress, there would be federalism questions (which I think valid) but it's difficult to see how it wouldn't fit into the Commerce Clause as interpreted by the Court (wrongly, in my opinion, but so it is).

Aieeeeeeeeeeee! Enough. Impeachment or an Amendment.

[blueriver]

The Supreme Court has ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not prevent local governments from seizing property for this reason.

Yes so according to the court it is constitutionally OK to seize property in this manner. So what would prevent a developer from challenging the constitutionality of a law that prohibits such seizure.