Write facts about Jenny that supports the argument above?

Jenny is 87 years old, living on a vacant lot in the same house where she was born in the city of hope. There are a few local businesses in the area that are carrying on and making a moderate profit. City officials want to take their land by the ancient right of eminent domain (right of government to take individual property without consent for the common good or public use, as long as just compensation is paid). The city wants to use the property for new development since the old neighborhood is rundown and in a state of blight. Its buildings are laden with asbestos and lead paint. The city plans to bring in new industry and business and build a more upscale neighborhood for incoming employees. Jenny doesn't want just compensation. She wants to live and die in the house in which she was born. The US Supreme court, in a 5-4 decision, has ruled that compulsory purchase to foster economic development falls under "public-use" and is constitutionally permissible. Justice O'Connor dissented, saying all private property is now vulnerable to coerced transfer as long as it might be upgraded, is the exercise of eminent domain consistent with justice in this case?

Libertarians (for Jenny). You argued that the exercise of eminent domain by the government is NOT consistent with distributive justice in this case and that Jenny is entitled to remain on her property without interference by the government and that eminent domain in this case is not a form of legitimate transfer to which the government is entitled.