2.) Don't presume to lecture me on this or any other subject.
Ok, I'll play.
So you say the takings were previously legal? Alright then, please cite the laws specifying Emminent Domain applies to land for stadiums and public transit systems. Or any specific use for that matter.
I believe what you are referring to is prior Emminent Domain seizures for stadiums and transit systems were legally defensable as Public Use when challenged by homeowners. In such cases the burden was upon the developers to prove the proposed public use was of greater benefit to the public than existing private property. This provided homeowners with varying degress of legal redress and accomodation.
The new ruling however redefines public use as private economic development and anticipation of increased tax revenue. There does not have to be an actual public benefit so developers and towns no longer have to prove this when seizing private property.
Emminent Domain seizures were at best legally defensible in a case-by-case basis -as the Constitution intended, hence the vagueness of "public use" and "just compenstation". With the new ruling "Public Use" is specifically defined as private economic development and anticipated tax revenue. Emminent Domain seizures are now in effect legally invulnerable.
Because of the new definition of Public Use the burden has shifted to property owners to prove there is less of an economic and tax benefit in a proposed use of their land than their existing use provides. Only then would the bulldozers pause.
BTW, lectures are integral to debate.