True. But to jump back to your main point on it, how is it good for those who believe that level of public use is wrong? Maybe I'm misunderstanding it but you seem to say "no, the decision leaves it in local hands so it's ok" and yet it's those very local hands that are creating the problem. If the courts decided to side-step addressing segregation and leave it in local hands woud that be good? For those of us who feel Kelo is wrong, that's what we felt has happened. That the courts simply shirked the issue. Yes, that's not as bad as an endorsement but it's not exactly saying the practice is wrong. And if you think Kelo is wrong, that sure isn't very encouraging.
You are misunderstanding me. I did not say that the decision left the decision in local hands. The Court didn't just throw up its hands and say.....we can't decide....let the legislature have the last word. They reviewed the legislation/development plan to see if it met with what the majority believed to be public use according to takings jurisprudence. When I said that in the end the majority was comfortable with the legislature's actions it was with regard to the idea that the legislature had enacted a plan that was going to redevelop the entire area under an integrated plan for the public purpose of improving economic conditions in an area that had already been labeled "distressed" by the state. My main point was and is that based on past and current takings jurisprudence, this case wasn't reallly a stretch. As the majority's opinion stated this was not a transfer of private property between private entities A and B based solely on the idea that B would make the profit more useful. Yet, that's how it's consistently portrayed. Finally at a very basic level, takings decisions are always initially going to be in "local hands." If you find that troubling then it would seem you have a problem with the 5th Amendment as written as much as you have a problem with this decision.