Most reasonable Constitutional scholars would answer "no."
That said, we have, for right and wrong, allowed the Supreme Court to be the arbitor of what is, and is not, Constitutional. The Court said "yes," so the answer is "yes."
The "spirit" of the law IMO is that the taking of private land by the gov is to be for critical infrastructure-- ONLY.
Looking at the history of ED, it was established during a time in America when we were just starting to really develop.
Train lines, roadways and other infrastructure needed to support a city were critical, and some peoples homesteads, farms, and other properties had to be aquired for this facilitation.
To use ED for increased TAX revenue is beyond perversion, and borders (if not interceeds) on Communism.
Period.
If I'm not mistaken, isn't that the role of the Supreme Court?
The sad part of the Maybury vs. Madison decision is that Congress has quit trying to write Constitutional law. They write what they want, and if the Supreme Court doesn't strike it down, then it must be OK. The system would work better if the other branches of government actually tried to defend the Constitution.
Is that not, under the Constitution, the actual power given to the Supreme Court?