FACT: the famous eminent domain decision handed down by our current US Supreme Court changed the traditional standard of 'for public use' to 'for public benefit'. That opens the door for seizing private property by the government for any exuse they can invent. Your land can be taken and given to a housing developer because the new use will produce righer tax revenue, a 'public benefit' in the eyes of those confiscating the property. Look at names who supported the seizures: Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, Stevens and Kennedy. A 5 to4 decision.
Here is a quote from last summer when the ruling was handed down:
"Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said New London could pursue private development under the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property if the land is for public use, since the project the city has in mind promises to bring more jobs and revenue.
"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," Stevens wrote, adding that local officials are better positioned than federal judges to decide what's best for a community.
He was joined in his opinion by other members of the court's liberal wing — David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy, in noting that states are free to pass additional protections if they see fit.
The four-member liberal bloc typically has favored greater deference to cities, which historically have used the takings power for urban renewal projects."
Repeat: the four-member liberal bloc was joined by wishy-washy Kennedy to render this decision. Conservatives universally oppose it and they were behind the numerous ballot measures seen in this recent election.