[AntiGuv]

Both O'Connor and Thomas directly address your observation in their dissents. They do a better job than would a brief rejoinder from myself.

[Torie]

I find O'Connor's dissent singularly unpersuasive. It's OK to condemn private property in Hawaii and give it to lessees because ownership was concentrated, and it's OK to fight blight because it is for the public good, including taking the unblighted within the blight area because it is part of a larger scheme, but it is not OK to take out a nice house which is holding up creating an office park which will serve demonstrated public purposes.

O'Connor's standard seems to be if it benefits the poor, or poorer, it is OK, and if it benefits the rich, or the richer, as she sees it through her mind's eye, it isn't.

Do you really find such an analysis persuasive as opposed to well, embarrassing?