Still more New London

The NY Times included a picture of Suzette Kelo's house post-condemnation. (h/t PlaNetizen) If you aren't up on this, the Times summed up the SCOTUS decision in one paragraph:

In a 5-to-4 decision, the high court ruled that it was permissible to take private property and turn it over to developers as part of a plan to bolster the local economy. Conservative justices, including Clarence Thomas, dissented. Justice Thomas called New London’s plan “a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation.”

Property right activists will note this a free market repudiation of the court's decision. While the Supreme Court probably hasn't had the last word on this yet, I think the current state of New London may reveal more about the local decision making processes than about long-term constitutional issues.