Regarding the case, Kelo v$.$ City of New London, in dissenting opinions, members of the Court argued that this decision makes all private property vulnerable to being taken and transferred to another private owner so long as the property is improved in some way that serves a public purpose. Moreover, they argue that this decision is advantageous to large corporations or individuals with political power or connections, while those with few resources are disadvantaged. Do you agree with either of these criticisms? Why are why not?