Tom Blumer at Bizzyblog has a look at the "backlash" against the "Kelo backlash" and decides that it doesn't hold water, discussing a column by one Michael Kennedy in the New London Day newspaper justifying Kelo:
Regardless, here's one guy [the columnist, Michael Kennedy] who thinks Kelo was a good ruling. I don't agree. If the Kelo Seven are being selfish, shortsighted, obtuse, etc., it's their right. They earned that right when they took ownership of their property. So-called larger societal goals beyond those that truly benefit the common good (roads, bridges, etc.) don't enter into the equation. Sorry, Mr. Kennedy.
Also, Tom has a number of good links on this post that follows some of the fall-out from the case, including this one on the "fair market value" to be received by the displaced homeowners.
If this is something on which Tom and I can actually agree, then this is definitely more evidence of the widespread nature of the anti-Kelo backlash that I described last week.