"Dave" wrote
I direct your attention to the text of the Fifth Amendment. The public use
restriction of that Amendment has its roots in the Magna Charta, and the
courts have held that a legislative act transferring private property from
one individual to another (as opposed to taking the property for a public
use) are void.


" nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation. "

So, is fixing up the town by replacing bad parts with good a "public use"?
There is a long history of land grabs for private use going back to
railroads being given sections of land along their tracks and LBJ's "urban
renewal" scheme in which "blighted" private property was condemned then
handed to whatever developer offered the "best" use.

The historic buildings comprising downtown Rockville, Md., were condemned,
purchased using tax money then raised and the land sold to a developer for
pennies on the dollar to build a mall. Dozens of successful, tax paying
family businesses leasing space in the old town went broke waiting for the
mall so when it was finally done it sat empty and paid little or no taxes.
This was 30+ years ago.

I don't say any of it is/was morally right, but it happened and set
precidents and, since the plaintives cannot rely on the court, they need to
lobby their legislatures. I suspect that in the real world where we have the
best government money can buy they're screwed.