Following up on Robert's post below, I can see a whole new chain of hotels, called "Souter Inns" which could be built on every property that Justice Souter (and the others on the court who joined in the Kelo opinion) owns in the United States. The opinion specified only "well thought out" economic development plans and a positive probability that there would be increased jobs and taxes as a result of any development option that a city would consider. Why stop at one property?

Here in Arlington, where we have our own land grab underway for the Cowboys stadium project, there was an audible sigh of relief from the powers-that-be when the Court decided in favor of localities taking property. However, our esteemed mayor stated that the court case really had little connection to what is going on in Arlington because the city will own the stadium and lease it to the team.

Thus, even if the court had come down on the other side it would have left open the question of public takings for "publicly owned" development that is, in turn, leased to a private enterprise for well below market value. Who exactly is the residual claimaint of development?

What's to stop house-farm developers from refusing to pay market value for farm land on the edges of town (here land is going for 50-60k per acre in some parts) when they can pressure the localities to pay a lower price? There is no "hold out" in that case - no individual or few individuals standing in the path of "progress" - and yet the court's opinion would still seem to prevail.