The rest of the decision:
From the AP article which you quoted (as it appears on Yahoo! News):
"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," Stevens wrote. He added 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 bloc typically has favored greater deference to cities, which historically have used the power of eminent domain for urban renewal projects.
At least eight states — Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Montana, South Carolina and Washington — forbid the use of eminent domain for economic development unless it is to eliminate blight. Other states either expressly allow private property to be taken for private economic purposes or have not spoken clearly to the question.
Emphasis mine.
The Court has ruled to uphold state law rather than to change it by legislative fiat, and has clearly indicated that if the people disagree with their state's eminent domain laws, that the statehouse is the place to challenge them.
I find it interesting that the activist judicial stand taken by the minority is supported by people here who ordinarily oppose judicial activism. Perhaps it's not the activism that is offensive, but where it's used. If it's used to defend property, that's OK; to defend people, not so much.