I didn't see that mentioned in the article. Are you sure you are not thinking of that article someone linked to in a comment here on HN rather than the submitted article?
That's consonant with the plain language of the 5th Amendment, Kelo notwithstanding: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
I take the article's language as the author knowing this is scamming the Constitution's provision for eminent domain, even if it's pretty clear he doesn't care. Hence the quote starting this thread.