I've seen some pretty serious blight both urban and rural. So eminent domain to improve an area over the objections of recalcitrant owners is not what bothers me, really. Everyone would be better off if it were improved.
What bothers me is the taking of private property over an objection with just compensation for those losing their property. Just compensation should INCLUDE a piece of the action off their former property. It shouldn't be, "We want your property because it has a magnificent view/location on a beach front/river front/lake front, and we're giving you what we think is market value whether you like it or not."
Instead it should be, "We know it's magnificent, the best location around, and we're giving you control of X area in the new development relative to your square footage in the total development.
Then let that person farm it out for business or sell it. They don't keep their shack in the middle of it, but they just might be the same size as a coffee shop in the new area. And someone might want to buy that from them at a real price.
If a private entity wants to take property from another private entity, and the sole justification is that they will use it better..... then there also has to be an option that someone says “no thank you, even for 10 million extra, I prefer to keep my shack”.
Anything else is crap. It sure isn’t capitalism.