The owners can try to sue or challenge it, in this case it may work. In other cases it's not so good. Check out the Barclays Center in Brooklyn and the fight that went down.

If only Jefferson had kept the right to property in the Declaration of Independence, maybe the Bill of Rights would have had it too, "eminent domain" would be an archaic device reminiscent of royal tyranny, and we would all be a lot freer and wealthier. The future belongs to us, so we could get rid of such tyrannical power, ourselves.

Eh, I'm not sure I agree. I think eminent domain is useful, if not essential, in cases where land is needed for public infrastructure projects. But allowing its use in order to give land to a private company is going too far.

Eminent domain is a despotic power; to grant any legitimacy to the taking of property for "public use" is the abhorrent tip of a wedge, even with supposedly "just compensation." This should have become clear to all after the 2005 Kelo decision. [1]

Recommended reading: Property Rights and Eminent Domain by Ellen Frankel Paul [2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

[2] https://www.amazon.com/Property-Rights-Eminent-Domain-Franke...

That's why the Institute for Justice is there. A lot of states have laws against this sort of abuse.

They probably can, but I doubt the incentives are nearly as lucrative.