They have totally missed that there is a 200-year tradition in America of favoring "developmental rights" over "pristine property rights," and even Justice Thomas, in my view, missed the significance of this by (I think) taking the wrong argument on the "Mill acts."
The lawyers for the homeowners should have based their case on the fact that private home ownership DOES do more for the "public good" than does a mall; that "developmental rights" were HARMED by putting up a mall, especially when it is likely to fail.
I don't see this applying to churches at all.
before yesterday a local community had no viable means of taking over the propery of an unwanted/non-revenue-producing religious organization that was not "condemnable"
today they do.
Then you are mistaken. It is already being done. There is a case now where a growing church was seeking property on which to build a new church. Over the period of several years they acquired several pieces of adjoining real estate as they came up for sale or the owners were persuaded to sell. Before the church could start building, some greedy developer got the local government to condemn the property so that he could make a large amount of money and the local government would not lose the tax base of the property.
God's house will be bulldozed for Donald Trump's house because Donald Trump will pay more taxes to the government.