I'm not missing that point at all, as that was the exact argument of the leftists on the Court. And you're just as wrong as they are.
The two cases that were precedent here were are the Hawaii Housing Authority case and Berman v. Parker, which were entirely different cases in that Hawaii Housing Authority was more about breaking up a land trust that functioned as a cartel and pre-dated Hawaii's statehood, and the Berman case actually put down parameters that said that eminent domain could be used to curb urban blight, not that it was wide open to any interpretation whatsoever.
The argument of you and the leftists on on the Court only applies if you adhere to the philosophy of:
a.) unlimited government power
b.) the Bill of Rights (specifically the 5th) empowers state and local government and not individuals, by providing unlimited authority under the Takings Clause.
Again, the Kelo decision has been proven to have been argued on fraudulent grounds by the City, and decided fraudulently by Stevens. There never was any serious plan to develop the neighborhood that would have passed any objective or knowledgeable arbiter, and the condemnation of the homes in the Fort Trumbull neighborhood actually COST the city money because of the litigation and demolition. The project never went anywhere and never was going to; it became nothing more than a power struggle at the end between homeowners and the local politicians.
Stevens incorrectly cited 19th century cases that actually DID establish limits on Public Use, and he even admitted after the fact that he had made a mistake in his citations.
Why you're defending an established fraud of a case really baffles me. Is Trump really that important to you that you would actually reject the conservative vision of property rights and liberties just to elect one guy?
I’ve said from the start that I would’ve decided with the minority. I just don’t think it’s that big of a deal. Can you cite any examples post-Kelo where government abused it’s “unlimited” powers to define public use for purposes of eminent domain.
You are absolutely correct that from a policy standpoint, it was a stupid decision by the local government in question there. But it’s certainly not a conservative principle for the SCOTUS to opine as to whether local decision-makers are making stupid decisions or not.