"As long as the landowners receive just compensation" is the only requirement to the ruling yesterday. This even allows for private property to be seized by the city, only to be transferred to another private owner.

"Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court in Washington. He said the justices "decline to second-guess the city's considered judgments about the efficacy of its development plan."

This ruling came about due to stalled developments in New London, Connecticut. The New London development project centers around a Pfizer Plant, and calls for the takeover of 115 homes and small businesses in the adjacent area.

The city began condemnation proceedings, prompting Susette Kelo, and eight other homeowners to sue.

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said in dissent. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

"With today's decision, no one's property is safe," said Roger Pilon, the director of the Center for Constitutional Studies at the libertarian Cato institute. Cato filed a brief in the case asking that New London's proposed seizures be blocked. "Any time a government official thinks someone else can make better use of your property than you're doing, he can order it condemned and transferred."