The Kelso decision held that the mere anticipated gain by municipality of tax revenues is enough to qualify for a public purpose. This is a rather radical departure from previous practice because it broadly expands the definition of public purpose. We're not talking about building roads bridges or schools, we are talking about private enterprise having its way against property owners because it can enlist the aid of some governmental entity with condemnation powers because. It is not hard to conceive of situations in which billionaire entrepreneurs can influence municipal governments and entice them with sugarplum visions of increased tax revenues. The balance of power has certainly shifted away from the private property owner.
This potentially alters our entire concept of private property making it all subject to being taken away at any time for any reason that the government conceives of that will increase its revenues and no doubt for other reasons which might be concocted. This is not merely a matter of the odd property holder being discomfited, this is a whole new way of organizing our capitalist economy. If billionaires who have access to capital can manipulate governments against property owners, the future is not one of liberty if liberty is dependent upon property.
As to Trump's assertion that property owners are compensated at multiple times the value of their property, this is simply not true in the general case. If it is not agreed upon, these matters are litigated and usually submitted to a jury. There is no guarantee that the homeowner will be enriched in the process but even if he is fully compensated, he has lost control of his property, he has lost a degree of liberty.
