We now have a solution, courtesy of In the Agora. Just catch this (linkage suppressed for readability -- check out the original to implement):
If you would like to protect your home from encroaching development, try getting eco-friendly. Commenter "Leslie" at Wren's Nest suggests using conservation easements to protect your property. Existing structures would probably be limited in their ability to qualify as environmentally important lands, but future residential developments could well take this into account. Perhaps the entire art of (sub)urban planning could be influenced by Kelo; subdivisions shielded by constructed wetlands, for example. Or if high quality ecosystems aren't your thing, one Canadian libertarian has this suggestion, "My advice? Move next to a Superfund site. You may get cancer but no one will ever take your house." Another artificial option, we may even see more instances of homeowners bringing endangered species onto their property to stop development. Once an onerous discovery, endangered species may herald the preservation of basic ownership with limited rights in the face of losing everything.
Right. Environmental kryptonite to stop the developers: sure, you may have limited your own rights to upgrade the house, but most people just want to keep it. And if that means putting out a feeder for a woodchuck or two, so be it.