Right. The issue is a gray one not black and white. Yes, local governments can force residents to sell their homes for new development. That has been going on for eons. Shacks have been destroyed so homes can be built in their place, interstates have been built, etc. The question is under what circumstances, where is the line drawn as to what kinds of property can be handled this way and what is the fair process for doing this? The Supremes skirted that apparently and left that descretion up to the communities and left it open-ended. I would want to see some strict criteria and limits on how any government can force a resident to sell property.
I entirely agree with your statement. The Supremes have bumped it back to the States. Isn't this what most of the people around here are always yelling for? Now they are saying, "Thats too hard. The Supremes should agree with my definition so I won't have to fight for what I consider "my" rights".
What I see is a bunch of lazy people who don't really support State's rights.