This has actually never been the case. Eminent domain is part of the constitution, and the sovereign governments have always had the power to take property for public use.
The only two inquiries allowed by the 5th Amendment are (1) whether the property is being condemned for a public use; and (2) whether the property owner is receiving just compensation. The first inquiry is often abused - as the article suggests - but has generally be interpreted as primarily a political question. As long as the condemning authority has any rational public purpose for the taking, then it's ok. The second inquiry requires full compensation to the affected landowner or leaseholder, which most courts interpret to include payment of attorneys fees by the government if the landowner can prove that the property is worth more than the state offered. That means that it's not as hard to fund these cases as the article appears to suggest.
Because it is there doesn't mean politicians have an obligation to use it. It has been used as a tool by the state to redistribute wealth. In this day and age ED is really no longer needed. It is imcompatible with private property.
The phrase "just compensation" is totally subjective and cannot realistically be determined by the state. Just compensation can only be determined by a willing seller and buyer.