Interesting post and you point directly at the problem to be addressed: what is the public interest when economic development is the goal driving the use of eminent domain proceedings?
Both the dissenters and the majority looked at this issue.
The dissenters complained that the majority had not provided any guidelines for evaluating economic development eminent domain condemnations to ensure they were in the "public interest."
The majority view was that there was just too much variety in the possible projects that governments undertake to make up a comprehensive set of guidelines that would be applicable in every case. They choose to rely on open and publically reviewable governmental planning processes to identify appropriate projects and on the established judicial protocols and procedures for handling the eminent domain cases as they arise. (And let's remember that there were 115 parcels of land in the project and all but 11 landowners(some of them related to others) choose to accept the development authority's offer without court action. So the use of eminent domain proceeding was a last, not a first, resort.) So it seems to me that the majority wanted to keep things as simple and as local as possible.
At the end of it's opinion, the majority also strongly invited States to impose stricter standards on this type of economic development activity if they wanted to. So action on this issue now really resides at the State (and lower) level(s) of government.
So if you really think it is a good idea for 11 property owners to be able to disrupt or entirely derail an economic development project that might bring hundreds or thousands of jobs back into a community that has be economically depressed for 15 or more years, then get your state legislature to outlaw the use of eminent domain proceedings in these instances and then be prepared to live with the consequences. The court is saying that you just can't use the 5th Amendment takings clause anymore to roadblock efforts and make a federal case out of it. (No or unjust compensation notwithstanding.)
I was having the same thoughts as YDR and applaud his posting and your reply. In essence, what you are saying (as posted above) is this case is a prime example of federalism at work. Agree/disagree, expound at your pleasure.
If you agree that this is an example of federalism, please expand your thoughts on how far that will really take us in this particular discussion on eminent domain. IMO, federalism is currently a dying concept because of activist courts that create new "findings and penumbras" on their own whim. Along with some other posters in this thread, I see mostly bad tidings here and don't really see an out with action at the state level as proposed by the SCOTUS opinion.
TIA for your response...I appreciate your participation in the thread thus far.