In the dissenting opinion of this case, Justice O'Connor
mentions pretty much what you just stated, although it was
a bit less sensitive about eminent domain (here is the
text of the case:
My question to you is this: do you not think that it would
be okay even if government did it responsibly?
Well, the problem would ultimately lie in how you define responsible. If the government is in effect seizing your property to give it to another private entity, rather than building a public works project (power plant, highway, etc..), b/c it claims it will get some kind of tax benefit you simply can't provide, is that really fair? Shouldn't the private developer have to be forced to strike a deal with you instead? Afterall, they're moving into an area where they think there's money to be had and perhaps should compensate you accordingly. But if you buy a piece of property (even speculatively), shouldn't you have the right to keep it and sell it at a profit? Most likely the private developer is usually taking an unethical shortcut of bribing government with promises of revenue down the road in return for getting the property fairly cheaply. Who's to say that once bureaucrats have the right to seize your property this elastically that someone down the line won't abuse it. Even if that abuse is ultimately rectified, at what price?
BTW, I tried your link, but it didn't work. Don't know if what I wrote is any more similiar than my first response to her opinion.