Kelo won't be reversed

Note that I'm in the minority on Usenet in never condemning Stevens'
decision in Kelo v. City of New London Connecticut. Also, the Conecticut
constitution has a takings clause:

SEC. 11. The property of no person shall be taken for public
use, without just compensation therefor.

"Public use" doesn't mean "land the public will use" but that the stated
public purpose in state law fulfilled the constitutional requirement.

Government action chooses winners and losers, like a public road
being built (perhaps the right of way was acquired by taking) so that
a particular parcel of land may be developed or directing building
improvements at one public school but not another.

In New London, the development was never built.

The Institute for Justice represented a developer in a case in New York
in which the facts were even more egregious than in Kelo.

Bowers v. Oneida County Industrial Development Agency

Petition for certiorari denied on March 24, 2025

They intended to develop land across from a new hospital for a medical
office building. A competing developer had purchased a nearby parcel to
develop their own medical office building and wanted this parcel for a
parking lot so they had the government take it.

47 states have amended their eminent domain statutes to make it more
difficult to take property that doesn't directly benefit the public.
That's what Stevens said was the right way to handle the issue. New York
didn't.

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/bowers-development-llc-v-oneida-county-industrial-development-agency/

https://ij.org/case/bowers-v-oneida-county-industrial-development-agency/