There has never been tight federal control over how states use eminent
domain. The fifth ammendment just says that the governement can't take
private property for public use without just compensation. Under
numerous circumstances, turning the property over to another private
party may still legally constitute a public use. When we discuss this
stuff, we should also remind ourselves that using terms like "seize"
and "confiscate" can be misleading and get people really wound up if
forget to mention that compenstation is required.

I just about every case I have heard of, people are usually offered
relocations deals that include fair market value for their property and
a reasonable amount to cover moving costs. Of course most cases of
eminent domain condemnations probably don't require anyone to move.
They are often for easments, right of ways, etc.

This decision did not change much. States already had wide latitude
when it came to eminent domain, with this decision they still do. The
court was crystal clear that this decision did not preempt states from
creating stricter eminent domain laws that offer property owners more
protection. Some states already have tighter laws or state
constitutional limit. I have heard and read in the news that many
state lawmakers are looking at this in light of this decision.

The decision doesn't thrill me. But I think it was constitutionally
sound. If you don't like it, you need to petition your state
government to make sure tighter reigns are in place.