Just can't shake it

I'm up again in the middle of the night, thinking about the ramifications of Kelo v New London.

An interesting one popped into my head today. If 'economic development' is now defined as a public use, what about 'environmental protection'? The government has taken land through environmental regulation for years through stream buffers and set-backs. But take it a step further.

Mayor Nickels of Seattle has signed on to the US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. The agreement includes language regarding "efficient motor vehicles" among its provisions.

If 'environmental protection' meets the same standard that 'economic development' does, what will stop Mayor Nickles, or any of the other 165 mayors, from seizing your vehicle?

I'm sure I'm just overreacting...