I'm extremely troubled by the fact that this essentially gives a blank check to the government to take anyone's property at any time. They don't have to show blight or anything. They can force you out of your home, against your will, as long as they give you some money back (amount determined by themselves). If a group of residents in one area do not want their homes bulldozed to make way for a Wal Mart, then that Wal Mart ought to find somewhere else where the residents ARE willing to give up their homes. That's how the free market is supposed to work - offer enough money that people are motivated to leave, and if they're still not motivated, then find somewhere else. Essentially, this ruling puts the rights of corporations and developers above citizens.
I dont think that would answer the question of whether its desirable or not. Here in my town the city decided to put up several condos that block the bay view of some residents and in their minds detract from the rustic quality of the town. These people are out in full force against it, calling town meetings and picketing. That has hardly detered city planners who are not simply trying to create what would be a boon for the contractors or the future landlords (no matter what opponents say, read anti corporation argument) but rather recognize that without organized development ultimately the local region will suffer sprawl and overcrowding. This is a case in my mind for not heeding the outcry of some group of citizens who the press and they themselves would have you believe speak for the town at large and instead looking at down the road a ways for the good of the entire area region.