Yesterday I refrained from commenting on the 5-4 Supreme Court Decision granting incredibly extended "eminent domain" authority to local governments. This decision, in which private property can be taken for whatever reason the local government decides is "public use" be it a nicer set of buildings, or putting in a commercial district instead of a residential one, is an incredible example of why Jenn tells me to look to lower courts only if I want to see sanity in a decision.
While the majority decision apparently still requires the government have some purpose beyond simply transferring ownership, allowing a mere development plan to fulfill that requirement makes the restriction meaningless. Thus this decision essentially abolishes private property. You no longer own your house, our office (assuming you are not renting even). The government does, and whenever they decide your use of it does not fit their ideas, they can just write a plan that corresponds to the new ideas and then take it away from you.
While eminent domain requires "just compensation," that too is a joke. If they decide to zone your house for a road, you are not going to get the value of the property before that road was about to go through it. Similarly, no amount of money can truly compensate you for the loss of a home. I suspect that assessments under the extended eminent domain will be no different. They will give you as little as possible regardless of what the replacement value (buying the new home you now need) would be.