The reporting on this case has been terribly wrong. The Supreme Court decided no such thing. Stories about the case have seized on Sandra Day O'Conner's claim that this is an extension of the use of Eminent Domain, but that's simply not true.
I've read all four opinions issued in this case. I deal regularly with zoning and land use issues, and have been following this one since it was argued. I actually sympathized with the land owners - Eminent Domain is overused, and should be harder to justify. But what the Court did yesterday was very simple:
(a) it noted that the Court has never been the entity that defines "Public Use," that it has generally deferred to legislatures. (It is willing to rule on whether a particular case meets a definition, as it was doing in Kelo.)
(b) it deferred to the Connecticut legislature, which has a law on the books specifically allowing what was done in New London. It said, in essence, that the people of Connecticut can stop this by changing their own law.
(c) it upheld long-standing Court precedent, i.e. it was not an "activist" ruling. O'Conner's position would have been far more "activist."
Your state that have a more restrictive definition of "public use," or a more expansive one, in its property law. If this decision concerns you, read up on your own law and talk to your state representatives.
But ither way, this decision will NOT make it easier to claim land.
Below I've quoted some of the language of the opinion.
JAC
The question presented is whether the city's proposed disposition of this property qualifies as a 'public use' within the meaning of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution."
...
In December 2000, petitioners brought this action in the New London Superior Court. They claimed, among other things, that the taking of their properties would violate the .public use. restriction in the Fifth Amendment. After a 7-day bench trial, the Superior Court granted a permanent restraining order prohibiting the taking of the properties located in parcel 4A (park or marina support). It, however, denied petitioners relief as to the properties located in parcel 3 (office space). 2 App. to Pet. for Cert. 343.350.4
After the Superior Court ruled, both sides took appeals to the Supreme Court of Connecticut. That court held, over a dissent, that all of the City.s proposed takings were valid. It began by upholding the lower court.s determination that the takings were authorized by chapter 132, the
State.s municipal development statute. See Conn. Gen. Stat. ยง8.186 et seq. (2005). That statute expresses a legislative determination that the taking of land, even developed land, as part of an economic development project is a .public use. and in the .public interest.. 268
Conn., at 18.28, 843 A. 2d, at 515.521. Next, relying on cases such as Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U. S. 229 (1984), and Berman v. Parker, 348 U. S. 26 (1954), the court held that such economic development qualified as a valid public use under both the Federal and State Constitutions. 268 Conn., at 40, 843 A. 2d, at 527."
....
"The disposition of this case therefore turns on the question whether the City.s development plan serves a .public purpose.. Without exception, our cases have defined that concept broadly, reflecting our longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field.
In Berman v. Parker, 348 U. S. 26 (1954), this Court upheld a redevelopment plan targeting a blighted area of Washington, D. C., in which most of the housing for the area.s 5,000 inhabitants was beyond repair. Under the plan, the area would be condemned and part of it utilized for the construction of streets, schools, and other public facilities. The remainder of the land would be leased or sold to private parties for the purpose of redevelopment, including the construction of low-cost housing. The owner of a department store located in the area challenged the condemnation, pointing out that his store was not itself blighted and arguing that the creation of a .better balanced, more attractive community. was not a valid public use. Id., at 31.
Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Douglas refused to evaluate this claim in isolation, deferring instead to the legislative and agency judgment that the area "must be planned as a whole" for the plan to be successful. The Court explained that .community redevelopment programs need not, by force of the Constitution, be on a piecemeal basis.lot by lot, building by building.. Id., at 35. The public use underlying the taking was unequivocally affirmed:
We do not sit to determine whether a particular housing project is or is not desirable. The concept of the public welfare is broad and inclusive. . . . The values it represents are spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary. It is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well-balanced as well as carefully patrolled. In the present case, the Congress and its authorized agencies have made determinations that take into account a wide variety of values. It is not for us to reappraise them. If those who govern the District of Columbia decide that the Nation.s Capital should be beautiful as well as sanitary, there is nothing in the Fifth Amendment that stands in the way.."
