In Kelo v. City of New London (2005), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the condemnation of unblighted residential neighborhoods for economic development by private entities did not violate the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that condemnation be limited to public use.’ While the text of the 5-4 majority’s opinion stressed deference to past precedent, the subtext was a settled belief that state and local governments would use what the dissent termed “uncabined” powers with fairness and skill. These assumptions arose from a lingering Progressive Era faith in the role of trained professionals as guides to good public policy and from an implicit perception that the institution of property itself had lost much of its coherence (Grey 1980).