Property metaphors and dignity

Check out Eduardo Penalver's new paper, "Property Metaphors and Kelo v. New London:  Two Views of the Castle."  Here is the abstract:

Much of the popular outcry against the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. New London can be understood in terms of the public's commitment to the conception of the home as a castle. This familiar metaphor is typically viewed as aligned with libertarian conceptions of property and of the right to exclude. Taken to its logical conclusion, the metaphor's connotation of an owner's "absolute dominion" would seem to rule out the exercise of eminent domain altogether. A different understanding of the castle metaphor is possible, however, one rooted in notions of the dignity of home ownership. While such a dignitary understanding of the home as the castle remains true to the intuitions underlying the metaphor, it yields a far more flexible stance towards eminent domain.

Eduardo's paper is a bit critical of the Institute for Justice -- an outfit that does (what I think is) great work in the school-choice arena -- but I think he raises good points and worthwhile concerns about the use and occasional misuse of the "castle" metaphor in the eminent-domain debate, and also about the "dignity of home ownership."  (A working paper by a top-shelf scholar named Nicole Stelle Garnett also emphasizes dignitary concerns in this context).  On the other hand, my own impression has been that, in fact, the anti-Kelo outcry has sounded as much in the "dignitary" understanding of property as in (what Eduardo calls) the "despotic dominion" understanding.  And, knowing that Eduardo shares my interest in the Catholic Social Thought tradition, I wonder if he thinks it is possible that, in fact, much of the outcry reflects a concern that hollowed out property rights (i.e., rights that permit forced takings for private development) are less able to perform the "mediating" / subsidiarity-enhancing role that some of us think they should play?