Kerry Country points out one of the potential effects of the SCOTUS ruling:

This has to be a godsend for towns and cities that have been stymied so far in their attempts to shut-down any businesses, corporations, or private groups of which they disapprove. Private gun ranges, airfields, RV tracts, hunting preserves, fishing resources, minority religious congregations, newspapers -- all are now fair targets for seizure and closure "for the economic benefit of the people."

I think they're right. To hell with stare decisis (particularly in a 5-4 vote). This is a ruling that should be overturned, or at least narrowly restricted, as soon as we can replace at least one of the justices who voted in favor.

100 people need to move near the Kennedy Compound, incorporate, draft an urban renewal plan, seize and demolish.

Pretty sure they haven't quite thought out how protests against the elimination of the 5th amendment would proceed.

I'm surprised there has not been more public uproar over this. Suppose you live in a "modest" single-story $100,000 house. You like it, you don't want to sell, you've already lived there 20 years... All a buyer or developer has to do is show your local government that they can put a three-story house there worth $500,000 that will increase the property tax- and you can find yourself out on the street.
Now that there is a SCOTUS precedent ruling, it won't take a long, drawn-out court battle to remove you- it could happen in less than a week. I know County Commissioners and real estate hounds in my area who are already licking their chops over this one.

Yeah, that's why the Kos poster that Instapundit linked to was so happy about this ruling.

In their mind, this lets them get rid of Walmart and any non-progressive sort of business or group.

It gets worse. They won't even have to pay you a fair price for the property.
While the law states "just compensation" it doesn't state what that entails.
A city could well define "just compensation" as the price of the land as it was at the time the city first sold it to someone a hundred years ago and pay you a dollar for your $250.000 home.

This wasn't just some decision reached in a vacuum of legal abstraction high up on an ivory tower. The liberal justices are aware of the context of the filibuster battle, and of the Republican gains in the last election.

They felt that their time as liberals on the court was rapidly coming to an end, so they decided on one last javelin strike at the heart of personal property ownership in the USA. They wanted, in one stroke, to convert us into a communist society, before Bush stacks the high court with his own appointees.

"They wanted, in one stroke, to convert us into a communist society, before Bush stacks the high court with his own appointees."

You're supposed to wear the tin foil on your head to keep the moonbat beams out, not in your underwear...

This has to rank as among the very worst SC decisions of my lifetime (I'm 48). Isn't it funny how the liberal accuse conservatives of wanting to take from the poor to give to the rich, but it was the liberal and so-called moderate justices that said it was ok, so long as revenues increased. All of the conservative justices voted against it.

I do suspect that a city trying that trick on a gun range might not be a good idea. Pissing off a lot of well armed people might not be healthy.

Long as they don't use trench knives, Larry.

Actually, the post about just compensation above is pretty much right on, except for details about the measurement. Namely, here's what happens in Maryland:

Bureaucrat: "We need to tear down your house to buy a freeway. Here's 20% of the market value."

Homeowner: "What?! Why can't I get market value?"

Bureaucrat: "Your property's going to have a freeway through it! Who would want to live there?!"

Well, the SCOTUS took the US a giant step toward the standards of Zimbabwe.

Now governments can tear down blighted orphanages and make all the ugly poor people go away.

Well, this actually happened to my family. In 1958. In St. Louis, MO, which is why I claim Tucson, AZ, as home.
We lived in a lovely two-story house with full basement and twenty acres of land behind us that were full of gardens and two "woods" (that's what we kids called 'em). The block I lived on had been left wild in the center, so that the houses on three of the four sides could enjoy a little bit of undeveloped land, especially for their children. I can't begin to explain how happy we children were, growing up with huge oak trees to climb, mulberry trees to raid, a shallow cave for adventures, and so on. We had divided the woods into "the Medieval woods" and the "prehistoric woods," and yes, we used thoese names. We were well read.
So for the first ten years of my life I had the city only a few steps away (the fourth side of our block) and wilderness when I wanted it, and cultivated gardens too. Life was good.
Then the city decided that the businesses on the fourth side of the block needed a parking lot, and that the woods and gardens had to go. The city took our land and gave us "just compensation." And what was that "just compensation?" Exactly what my grandfather had paid for the land 30 years before, when the area was roaring wilderness and the streets were not even paved.
My grandfather, by the way, was the town's GP doctor. My grandmother was the town's head librarian. Grampy's office was in our house, complete with X-ray machine, autoclaves, darkroom for developing X-ray pictures, and medical laboratory. My father had converted the basement into an engineering lab, because he was an aeronautical engineer at McDonnell Aircraft and had lots of ideas he tinkered with in his off hours. The aerospace industry has benefited greatly from his tinkering.
Among the people on our block were: the local piano teacher, the town's Methodist preacher (great guy!), a reporter for the local paper, a strange couple whom we never saw -- and did we children make up spooky stories to account for them! -- and several extended families, all of whom worked in town and who had owned the homes in that block for ten or more years.
So the town evicted about twenty productive families, some of them highly productive, destoryed a happy community, and ruined a fine place to raise children, for the sake of -- about a dozen parking spaces. After it took the land the city suddenly realized that most of it was steep hill and impossible to put a parking lot on, so it left the land bulldozed and ruined and undeveloped. Except for those parking spaces.
Me, bitter? Naaawwww.... :-(

I think people ought to consider Aleta's story. This sort of injustice has been going on for a long time. I don't consider the Supreme Court decision to change anything.

It doesn't change anything, so much as cement it in place.

For the benefit of the gent who called this communism:
This is not communism. This is fascism. i.e. third-way politics.

In particular, this aspect of fascism is called corporatism.

OK, it was a bad outcome. Alas, SCOTUS' majority voted on law and precedent, which is what they should (mostly) do. I can wish they had taken the "Thus far, and no farther!" route, and all it would have taken was a very small amount of initiative... What is truly strange is that in what, a week, they ruled in one case that Federal law overrules State law in all circumstances and in a second case that Federal law does not override State - or even village - law.