posted elsewhere and repeated...
I don't like the ruling and believe it is a bad turn of events for municipal governments to take property for private development, but.....
It has been the way of America for a very long time, at least 150 years.
The railroads aquired all their right ow ways by the eminent domain process and they were very private corporations. The same is true for the electric power companies. The process has great precedent
Don't forget the Cherokees and their land, taken from them by Andrew Jackson and the American Military. They were American citizens and had a congressman as well that also had to move onto a reservation.
It's curious that you attempt to draw an analogy between transportation-energy and consumer shopping-condominium development in New London.
In most cases the railroads were not deeded property rights as much as they were rights-of-way. Further, when the railroad ceases to use/operate on those rights-of-way, the land usage falls back to the original owner who is often the neighboring property owner.
The legal basis of acquiring these rights-of-way used eminent domain principles but the property was rarely deeded to a new party, rather an easement was recorded.
This was evident when the City of Los Angeles began its Light-Rail development along the old Pacific Electric Red Car lines. The previous Red Car rights-of-way had been abandoned by Pacific Electric and so the land easements were reconveyed to their original adjoining properties. The City of Los Angeles had to compensate the landowners to reestablish the rights-of-way.
In any event, the electric grid and the railroads compensate the owners via lease payments to use established rights-of-way.
A current example is the use of cell phone towers. Many cell companies offer landowners lump sums of up to $100,000 or more for the 'right' to operate a tower on their property for a specified period of time. Should the cell company cease operating the tower, they are often required to remove equipment and return the tower site to its previous condition.
What the current ruling does is to take property, not just create a right-of-way.
The basis of the ruling was not intended to overturn property rights but to 'limit' the Supreme Court's role in the intervention of state level property disputes. This was an error as the fifth amendment of the Constitution clearly states the Federal role in eminent domain. So although the court attempted to take a position of limited power, it in fact weakened the Constitution by failing to uphold individual property rights.