You could be struck by lightning by then too.
Taking of property for "public use" is in the Constitution and the interpretation of public use as a public purpose, has been supported by the courts since the 19th century. Now, because you're told to think about it, you become concerned. Were you concerned about this before this??
The unalienable right to ones private property is best protected with specific laws at the local level. This Alabama law is a start, yet this law is no different than what's been going on for over a century.
If it causes you too much concern, then work with the people of your state to make a better law. Don't rely on the SC to take a vague clause in the Constitution and actively make it better.
You state: Taking of property for "public use" is in the Constitution and the interpretation of public use as a public purpose, has been supported by the courts since the 19th century.
If this is the case, why were so many smart people upset with this Court's interpretation of 'public use'? I believe that Kelo was a departure from the previous definition of 'public use'.