Is this law not trumped by the SCOTUS? Supreme law of the land, and all of that?
"We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States already impose “public use” requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline. Some of these requirements have been established as a matter of state constitutional law, while others are expressed in state eminent domain statutes that carefully limit the grounds upon which takings may be exercised."
No. In Kelo the Supreme Court merely extended the limit for how far the government can go in taking property. States and local authorities are prefectly free to enact stricter rules and limits.
SCOTUS said that takings for economic development could be allowed, not that they must be allowed. Kelo et al were saying the takings were unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court disagreed (I think wrongly). This means that states can take private property and transfer it to another, but if states pass a law to limit their power, there is nothing that would be unconstitutional about that.
Of course not. The SCOTUS ruling says cities "can", not that they "must be allowed to". The state legislatures is where this should have been handled in the first place. Having the SCOTUS "rescue" property owners from their elected representatives would definitely be moving in the wrong direction. Look for the Connecticut legislature to follow suit.
No. SCOTUS has ruled that government has the Constitutional power to exercise Eminent Domain broadly. However, the Constitution is a floor, not a ceiling, when it comes to rights. Individual states can pass laws that grant citizens more rights than are in the Constitution.
An individual state, for example, could pass a law that completely banned the use of Eminent Domain by that state.
No, in its idiotic ruling yesterday the SCOTUS said the states could amend their constitutions. However, scotus should never have gotten involved in this to start with and they should never have defined public use as being "public good". Public good is the same as common good used so often by Hillary and other communists and has no place in our govenment especially involving soctus decisions.