As I explained, common sense applied to the constitution is to see the word "public use" and realise it means "public use".
Intellectual parsing that comes from years of training in the nuances of the constitution lead you to assume there must be something more, something the average "common-sense" person can't possibly know; so you find that any use which give government a benefit should be called "public use". That is not common sense. Nobody reading the 5th amendment would EVER think that is what it means, unless they had a law degree and years of talking constitutional minutae in ivory towers cut off from common sense.
Does anybody really believe that Kelo was the "common-sense" ruling? We all said it made "NO SENSE".