If David Souter in "good faith" made his decision in Kelo to permit takings for development by private parties with the intent to increase the level of economic activity and "hence" qualify as a "public use", then he in "good faith" would have no expectation whatsoever that his own property would be immune from the effects of such a decision. The proposed action is petty, but so was Kelo. And since when would it be unjust for him to reap what he sowed?