[kpp_kpp]

>
> Even under the present ruling, it would still be impossible
> to get rid of a specific entity alone. The government would
> effectively have to condemn the entire area surrounding the
> target as well.
>

that is an important point. can you point me to the specifics on the ruling that exclude its usage on a single property?

[krazyrep]

The whole case itself points to it. The case involved an area of land that was to be taken as a whole, not a piecemeal taking of selected properties.

So in order to get rid of a church on a residential street, the government could not merely pick on the church, they would need to take a larger area, including the houses surrounding it. In the Berman case (quoted in the current case), a store owner had his business taken because it was in the middle of a blighted area, even though his business was not per se blighted. The taking of his store was part of a larger plan of remediation for the area as a whole.

Furthermore, "“A purely private taking could not withstand the scrutiny of the public use requirement; it would serve no legitimate purpose of government and would thus be void.”" Midkiff, 467 U. S., at 245. The singling out of a specific entity would no doubt be construed as a "purely private taking."