No, the New London city government's action wasn't just, but it was legal, and to draw this distinction was what the Supreme Court had in mind. It's up to We The People to make the two synonymous.
The plaintiffs in New London were sacrificial lambs on the altar of political awareness, which really is too bad. And yet, while they will suffer pain, the city is still obliged to give them fair market value for their houses, so they won't be ruined, unless by bitterness. Bitter, they can choose not to be.
You are, of course, correct concerning the potential for corruption. But at this point, unless there have been payoffs or insider information resulting in purchase of nearby property, potential is all there is. Actual corruption can be headed off by community awareness, and who better to keep an eye on things than the people who were kicked out of their houses to Build A Better New London? They know the players better than anyone by this time, and it would give them something constructive to do with their justifiable anger.
Who knows? One or two of them might find out they're good at local politics, and wind up running the joint. If only they will try.
Current Events » in reply to drawing a blank
Just vs. Legal