All very general, but doesn’t answer the question as to what specific “major horror stories” have resulted from Kelo. I follow this stuff pretty closely, and can think of none. The fact that states and localities responded to Kelo with protective legislation proves that Kelo was correctly decided: it’s up to the states and localities to decide for themselves how they want to define public use.
The Court had a responsibility to stop a municipality from wrongfully seizing someone's land for public use when it was clearly not public use. We know that the seizure was wrong after the fact because the development was never real. It was dodgy that Pfizer was ever going to follow through on the development, and the development plans were a joke. The Fort Trumbull neighborhood is now a vacant field that is home to nothing but feral raccoons.
In no way could this have been a 'correct' decision, either practically, philosophically or Constitutionally, since we know that Stevens justification for siding with the New London was his misunderstanding of prior Eminent Domain decisions.
I don't know how you're arriving at these erroneous conclusions, but now you've drifted into incoherence by saying that the state and localities legislative responses, which were defensive in nature, somehow confirmed the accuracy of the Court. It was a reactive response to an incorrect decision, not a confirmation of it. That's like saying that because we were able to develop the atomic bomb and by extension nuclear energy, that proves that bombing Pearl Harbor was the correct thing to do.
Your statement is also nonsensical since you earlier said that you would've sided with the minority on the Court, and then said the majority was correct. Your statements are incoherent nonsense.
It isn't general at all, which shows you didn't even look at it. The IJ lists dozens of success stories out of the many thousands of cases they've handled, with specifics and news articles on the cases, as well as current projects and cases that they're working on that deal with Eminent Domain abuse.
If you don't think Eminent Domain Abuse is real, then you don't care, aren't paying attention, or are just equivocating for Trump.
The entire nature of the Kelo case is antithetical to a conservative's understand of liberty and the Constitution, so you must hail from somewhere else, where they like the views of Ginsberg, Breyer, Souter, and Stevens.