There's two issues with Kelo. One is Constitutional - whether the government can do it. The other is more philosophical or pragmatic - whether they should be able to do so? The first issue is satisfied as long as the government gives sufficient process and pays for the property they take. This was the focus of Kelo, and on that narrow grounds, I agree. The government can do that.
On the second issue, whether they should do that, well, not even Breyer (the author of the decision, IIRC) thought it was good policy. But the Supreme Court's job is not to determine whether a duly elected State government's policy is a good idea. SCOTUS is authorized only to say if the State can do it.
Let's go back to the Fifth again:
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Public use. Not private use. Should be the end of the matter right there. Instead, SCOTUS engaged in the same absurd destruction of the meaning of words that they did in Wickard and Gonzelez in deeming that the Commerce Clause allows the fedgov to regulate activities involving neither commerce nor interstate movement.
If words mean whatever five justices deem them to mean, then the Constitution in turn has no meaning and offers no protections to individuals. Period.
On the second issue, whether they should do that, well, not even Breyer (the author of the decision, IIRC) thought it was good policy. But the Supreme Court's job is not to determine whether a duly elected State government's policy is a good idea. SCOTUS is authorized only to say if the State can do it.
Sorry, but SCOTUS looked at the clear meaning of words and changed them. Breyer is just as culpable as those local tyrants taking land.
The focus of Kelo was NOT whether or not the government had the right to use eminent domain to exercise a forced purchase of private property. This right has been clearly established since the Constitution was written and was note in dispute.
The real issue in dispute was that it was the first case where the prime developer and the prime beneficiary of the economic development in question was a privately owned corporation, thus bringing into question the meaning of the "public use" clause. New London argued successfully that an increased tax base was all that was required to satisfy the definition of "public use".
and what do they "pay" for the property? they don't pay market rate, if someone wants my oceanfront house to build a condo complex on - the value of my house just went up 300%. but eminent domain allows the government to steal that increased market value of my house from me, by imposing that I be paid me "fair market value" - as if there wasn't going to be waterfront condos on it.
its outright theft.