I haven't run across very many people who favor the Majority's decision in Kelo. They are out there of course --- I'd say way out there -- and if I found one with any sophistication I'd ask him/her this key question -- and it's not a legal question but simply a practical one:
Why do you need the ability of being able to
condemn one piece of private property
and sell it to another private owner?
Not in theory because you can come up with some possible scenario of how to make the world a better place. Let's get real. What do you want to do that would be prohibited (or at least made more difficult) if you had a higher burden? And had to show more convincingly that the condemnation served a public use? What are you really giving up? What sort of projects do you want to do -- like maybe something similar to what GW Bush did with Arlington (TX) Stadium? -- that a tightening of the rules would prevent?
As well, can you actually provide any examples of projects which you can convincingly suggest (passing what lawyers call the "smile test" -- Can you make the argument and not smile?) would not have happened but for condemnation which transferred property from one private owner to another? Anyone know of a project which died because condemnation was not allowed? (That would apply in Washington State in particular.)
I think you'll find that that we lose nothing and gain a lot if we restrict condemnation. It is simply not even remotely essential to promote economic development.