Reply #2: More power to corporations and the few who control them

[jody]

KELO ET AL. v. CITY OF NEW LONDON ET AL
QUOTE
Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the Court has recognized. See, e.g., Berman, 348 U. S., at 24. Also rejected is petitioners’ argument that for takings of this kind the Court should require a “reasonable certainty” that the expected public benefits will actually accrue. Such a rule would represent an even greater departure from the Court’s precedent. E.g., Midkiff, 467 U. S., at 242. The disadvantages of a heightened form of review are especially pronounced in this type of case, where orderly implementation of a comprehensive plan requires all interested parties’ legal rights to be established before new construction can commence. The Court declines to second-guess the wisdom of the means the city has selected to effectuate its plan. Berman, 348 U. S., at 26. Pp. 13–20.
UNQUOTE

The court held that “Promoting economic development” is a “public purpose” and governments are not required to show a “reasonable certainty” that expected public benefits will accrue.

SCOTUS opened the door to the chicken house and GOP foxes can now steal at random unhampered by our judicial system. Another positive step toward a plutocracy of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation.

ON EDIT ADD
It's not surprising that Justices O’Connor, Renquist, Scalia, and Thomas dissented. Under a local government controlled by the people, the people could use this case to justify taking private property such as manufacturing plants and pay a price determined to be just compensation.