Which ever serves the interests and income of the area best.
Highest and best use.
They are supposed to allow payment and moves without tax consequences if they do it correctly.
RE: “highest and best use”
Having lived in CT during the state’s confiscation of Kelo’s land, I can tell you that it was sheer abuse of power, and like all too many gov’t endeavors turned out to be an expensive development failed misadventure.
Although the people’s republic of California real estate law places great virtue of “highest and best use” of land, an inconvenient question asks:
Who determines “highest and best use”, the property owner, or the government?
Also, what if the property owner does not want to sell or vacate their land, regardless of state compensation offers?
Does potential gov’t tax revenue trump a property owner’s right to possess and enjoy their land and dwelling?
The Constitution mentions nothing about the "highest and best use." The Fifth Amendment is clear on this: "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
There's nothing in the Constitution about taking private property from one and selling it to another. Nor is Kelo the taking of private property for "public" use.