O'Connors dissent is not very well done. Thomas is much more to the point. O'Connor hems and haws that private property can be taken with the intent of turning it over to other private owners but not in this case because the citizens in this case have less wealth than the vulchers.
Poor reasoning, the 5th Amendment is clear and Thomas explains it, private property rights are just that rights that governments can not abridge absent a compelling reason and "public use".
I suggest you read the dissents again.
Honestly, I think most of it is a matter of which writing style I prefer. Generally, I find Thomas' writing to be less persuasive due to the
way he writes, not necessarily the points he may raise in any given opinion. Instead of "questionable," I should have used the word "tedious." ;)
I can't change it here or on DKos, but I will certainly make that change on my own site. Thanks for the comment.
Either way, the majority is dead wrong on this issue.