This just in:

"Splitting 5-4, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that a local government may seize private property for purposes of profit-making private development, declaring that this constitutes a "public use" under the Constitution. (Kelo v. New London, 04-108)."

Hat tip: SCOTUSBlog

Update:
Property can be taken for development-Supreme Court

More from SCOTUSblog:

"While the opinion by Justice John Paul Stevens said that a local government could not take homeowners' property "simply to confer a private benefit on a paricular private party," the New London. Conn., project involved in this case was "a carefully considered development plan." While the resulting project would not be open for use by the general public, the Court said, there is no literal requirement of that outcome.

Joining Stevens in the majority were Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Anthony M. Kennedy, and David Souter. Kennedy filed a concurring opinion. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's dissenting opinion was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Thomas also wrote a dissenting opinion."

Update #2:
The press release from the Institute for Justice, which argued the Kelo side of the case, can be found here.

Fortunately, this doesn't bring an end to IJ's battle against eminent domain abuse - they now plan to take the battle to state courts and litigate the matter under often more favorable state constitutions. They also note that they will later seek to have this decision overturned, much as Poletown was overturned this past summer.

The press release also focuses on the real losers of this case - the poor and politically disenfranchised - while the real winners will be those with deep pockets and political leverage:

“One of the key quotes from the Court to keep in mind today was written by Justice O’Connor,” Bullock said. “Justice O’Connor wrote, ‘Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, 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.’”