Pipelines however are different. As long as they are in essence common carrier entities that are being built not only for the benefit of oil companies that use the pipelines but also for the benefit of the general public which ultimately relies on the oil being shipped thru the pipeline, then a taking is proper.
In this regard, I believe pipelines are more equivalent to powerlines that are used to transport power across our electrical grid.
Here is a good discussion from Reason that discusses the difference between private benefit takings and semi-public takings involving pipelines. I think the article is pretty fair in acknowledging that pipelines are problematic but ultimately are probably more equivalent to the building of powerlines than to the building of casinos.
Donald Trump, Jeb Bush, Eminent Domain, and the Keystone XL Pipeline
My point was that other people draw the line different from where you draw it. On pipelines, many people give easements and lose right to develop for a pipeline that they never get a benefit from (unlike electricity). Somebody else benefits, they just "lose." Technically, they are compensated and made whole.
Most people, offered money by a private developer, sell, at a handsome profit. Public pressure for that doctor office, hospital or sports arena can become unbearable. As population increases, so does development. Friction is inevitable.
At any rate, as a businessman, Trump used the tools. Money first, then court. he lost. bankruptcy, he probably offered a deal, was turned down, then went to court. That's the way conflicts of interest are settled. The little guy is at a disadvantage.
I don't think ED is a huge election issue. ED is problematic at local and state levels. A president has ZERO impact on it.