Would someone please define "the public good"?

Once again, I have to thank the horrible three, Rhenquist, Scalia, and Thomas, as well as O'Connor, for their dissent. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that the government can sometimes seize private homes and businesses on behalf of developers.

The majority opinion was based on the standard that the government can now seize private property in order to build highways and bridges, and that in some cases, private development projects may "also serve a public good."

In a stinging dissent, O'Connor wrote:

The specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory.

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

As for the victims, the government now has license to transfer property from those with fewer resources to those with more. The Founders cannot have intended this perverse result.