This is a reversal of the Preamble.
"We the people" have now been subordinated to the state. The only real owner of property is the state, and after the state comes the elite moneyed corporations and individuals.
The Supreme Court has just declared National Socialism the law of the land.
It is a very sad day for America, and it highlights that it matters not the party in power when justices are appointed.
I haven't read the decision, but it sounds perfectly constitutional to me. Governments have always had the authority to condemn land and to take it from a private individual provided that the land owner is paid just compensation.
The government is not stealing the land, but it is taking it in order to promote the General Welfare (which is a perfectly constitutional purpose). Land which can be better used for commercial purposes than for agricultural or for residential purposes can be taken in order to promote the best use of the land for public purpose. In most cases I suspect that the public purpose is to create a higher tax base and to promote jobs and economic development.
As long as the party from whom the property has been taken has been justly and adequately compensated, the consitution does not appear to be violated.
In most cases the disputes do not concern whether the govenment has a right to take the land, but whether the payment is just and adequate for the taking. But I see no violation of the Constitution here.
Can anyone explain how the US Constitution is violated if a City condemns land so that it can later resell it to a developer in order to promote the General Welfare of the community or promote economic development? If it does, then I musta missed that lesson in law school.