There is no doubt that this ruling has the effect of rendering private property a privilege (like a drivers license) as opposed to a right. You now own your house or other property only at the "pleasure of the state" and subject to the new "global test". Does your ownership serve the common good?

Correct me if I am wrong but this sounds a lot like the USSR with the exception that the USSR was at least honest about private property rights. They plainly stated that as a citizen you had none.

Another trend similiar to this decision is what I call "regulatory takings". By regulating everything from not allowing you to decide weather patrons in the bar you own are allowed to smoke to declaring huge tracts of private property as wetlands or home to some endangered species the government has in effect rendered huge chunks of of supposed private property both unprofitable and impossible to sell. In cases like this you are left with an annual tax bill on now useless property. At least in the Kelo decision there is some compensation and an end to your tax liability