The social harm is the lack of an office park. The Sandra Day distinctions are absurd.
Hmm.. That is an interesting way to put it. I'll have to think about it (actually, what I want to do is read the dissents in their entirety - I haven't done that yet).
So, I take it you're agreeing Justice Kennedy's formula of judicial divination? ;^)
I've now read the dissents in full and O'Connor's position is clearly that three categories comply with the public use requirement: (1) transfer from private to public ownership; (2) transfer from private to private ownership for public service; (3) transfer from private to private ownership for public purpose.
The public purpose is to remedy affirmative harm to the public - e.g., blight & oligopoly.
Justice Thomas would maintain the first two categories and remove the third altogether out of eminent domain jurisprudence and into property regulation persuant the police power. I suspect that I agree mostly with the interpretation of Justice Thomas, but I think Justice O'Connor's view is also reasoned (and they actually reach the same ends by different paths).
No, I do not think her position is embarrassing.