"Very good news for the U.N. and those who are implementing communism, you mean."
Communism?
Oh no.
WalMart, Costco, the large investment banks and real estate development houses like Vornado or even M. Trump are not Communists. They are full-fledged capitalists, skilled in the art of the deal. Businessmen always use whatever tools are at their disposal to get the best economic terms for themselves. The new Supreme Court decision makes it easier and faster for large capital players to more easily remove small landholders from obstructing large capital, for-profit developments, and will allow large capital players to obtain such properties at lower cost, especially lower legal costs.
This is not communism at all.
What it is, is capitalism freed of cumbersome regulation and allowed to unmask more of the pure power of money without intrusive, anti-capitalist laws standing in the way of the weaker party.
All of this talk of local action sounds a lot like the unionization talk of the past. Workers then felt exploited by the power of capital and the willingness of government to support capital (of COURSE government supports capital in a pay-to-play system such as America's. Why WOULDN'T it?). So they organized and used collective action to oppose the power of capital. It worked somewhat, chiefly by gaining control of some of the levers of government and using them to pass regulations of labor law which reduced the discretion of capital power.
The revanche of capital was, over the course of the Republican revolution starting in the 1980s, to replace pro-labor control of government with pro-capital officials, who then removed the regulations in favor of labor and allowed capital to assert the power of money without the interfering power of government regulation. That is capitalism.
This Supreme Court decision is simply another plank in that platform. Law and regulation has stood in the way of allowing the full power of capital to be brought to bear. With the removal of restrictions on eminent domain power (which has ALWAYS existed under the Common Law, and was always exercised by government in the US and England), capital is able to negotiate more freely with government to more quickly purchase and develop land. Individuals, with the least capital, have the least bargaining power in the free market. They are still paid, by the government, but they are not able to use government regulation and law to block capital from negotiating deals with government on better terms than before.
The UN and Communism has nothing to do with this.
This is pure Anglo-Saxon Common Law tradition going back to the Enclosure Acts. In American history, it closely parallels the relative bargaining power of government, capital developers such as mining interests, railroads and land speculators, and Indian tribes. Simple homeowners in America are now in the position of the Indian tribes of the 19th Century. They can, of course, still get paid fair value by negotiating with the government. This worked for the Indians, and no reason that the same American tradition will not work just as well for simple American landholders who happen to have parcels of land that would have greater capital use in a larger development than in mere habitation.
In France and elsewhere in Europe, but not England, it is much more difficult to take people's houses. Land is trapped in less efficient economic uses because capital cannot as easily obtain land for development. Individuals can block it. The Enclosure Acts were the early Anglo-Saxon solution to this, and were a clear departure from traditional beliefs about land ownership being absolute.
The Common Law tradition is quite different from the Civil Law on this, and what the US Supreme Court did two days ago is eminently in the Anglo-Saxon Common Law and US federalist tradition. It has nothing to do with Communists or the UN. This was an American Court, using American precedent, to impose quintessentially American law.
I could not disagree more with your assessment that this is a positive thing for the economy or that this will unburden capitalism. Capitalism will not last long if the smallest stakeholders effectively have no property rights. This is a victory for corporatism, not capitalism.
The unionists were not wrong to organize against what they perceived to be corrupt power. Collective action (as in the refusal of UAL workers to accept compromises with the corporation) can be self-defeating. But there are legitimate and positive uses of this form of power.
I also do not agree that American homeowners will simply forget about this. For one, I certainly won't be making any more urban real estate investments. The sight of bulldozers bearing down on the homeowner in New Londo (and what I assume will be a huge crowd) may in fact be a Tiananmen Square moment, a moment in which capitalism is defended from corporatism and plutocracy.