There are some good places to go for the full story and analysis:
Connecticut Law Blog
SCOTUSblog (there are also links to opinions here)
I think it stinks. Private development that will only tangentially affect the lives of most people in New London is at the very fringes of "public use." Here is what Justice Sandra Day O'Connor had to say:
Today the Court abandons this long-held, basic limitation on government power. Under the banner of economic development, all private property is now vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner, so long as it might be upgraded–i.e., given to an owner who will use it in a way that the legislature deems more beneficial to the public–in the process. To reason, as the Court does, that the incidental public benefits resulting from the subsequent ordinary use of private property render economic development takings “for public use” is to wash out any distinction between private and public use of property–and thereby effectively to delete the words “for public use” from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. (link to opinion)
This is a very slippery slope, as Justice O'Connor realizes.
So now what was once a perfectly functional working-class neighborhood will be destroyed, to be replaced by shops, apartments and entertainment for the well-to-do, in the hopes that some of the money generated might somehow find its way down to the people of New London. This is the public good? I can't see the justice in it. I just can't.