No, this is completely incorrect. Look up the Incorporation Doctrine.
No locality can violate the Constitutional Rights of citizens in a manner contrary to the findings of the Supreme Court and the FedGov. Laws can certainly be different, but they cannot violate the roadmap laid out by the Constitution and the Federal Courts, so if the Court says "You can't ban handguns", then no locality can ban handguns, period. It doesn't matter if they want to define the 2nd Amendment differently, or define "arms" differently and say it doesn't include handguns. They don't have that power.
Localities can differ on how they define public use...
Of course they can, because of Kelo there is now no limit on the Takings Clause, and localities and municipalities working in tandem with whatever private entities are lining their pockets can now define anything as a "public use". Anything.
If Kelo had been decided correctly however, and a public use was defined as actually being a public use, and not a public benefit or some other generality, then Pfizer and Donald Trump would not be able to take someone's house and build a pharmaceutical plant or a limo parking lot.
In other words, if Vera Coking's case had been decided post-Kelo, she would have lost.
As I lined out earlier, the only good thing to come from Kelo is that real conservatives in the state governments rushed post-Kelo to establish state prohibitions on eminent domain and state and local limits on the Takings Clause, because the decision was so heinous.
The point you’re missing is that it has never been otherwise with public use. The Supreme Court has always left it up to elected officials to define public use. It’s never been limited to lands that would end up being “open to the public” or however you want to define it. Eminent domain has always allowed for the lands to pass into private hands, if there was a public purpose for it to do so, such as railroads, pipelines, and utilities, and urban redevelopment areas, and on and on. They’ve never limited it to in the way you’re thinking that they should have. So you can argue that they should do so, but it would contrary to 230+ years of constitutional history dating back to the very Founding.