Even the DUers don't like this. When Freepers and DUers can agree on something, you KNOW there's a problem.
You know it.
How much less should we suffer such abuse when the purpose is not for an interstate highway or for some arguably necessary government purpose but for private development schemes which "benefit" the public interest (if any) at all only to the extent that the gummint critters will have more tax money to squander on their re-election schemes while (in many cases) being paid off by the bribes of feeding developers.
Lest I mislead, I have no problem with development but is must be achieved, if at all, the old-fashioned and more expensive way of paying as necessary in a free, arm's length transaction, with current owners. If your development project has greatly enhanced the value of their property, too bad.
There are an awful lot of trendy leftists (Phil Donahue, Marlo Thomas, Paul Newman, et al.) who own coastal and other verrrry desireable property in Connecticut and NEVER join with conservatives otherwise who are going to be VERRRRRY angry at this decision and the fact that it was delivered by the Stevens, Ginsberg, Souter, Breyer group who are their normal heroes and Anthony Kennedy who made the difference for them on abortion.
Look for a wave of state legislation to restrain this result since Stevens ruled that locals know better than the feds. State governments are local by comparison with Feds.
Can we spell "wedge issue."
You're absolutely right.