and I quote, from your link:
"Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded--i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public--in the process."
That's from the dissenting opinion which has NO EFFECT on the case (except blowing off built-up judical gas, I guess).