drmiler,
First of all, the 5th Amendment says that private property may be taken if compensation is given. Since it's totally constitutional to take private property in exchange for compensation, that would make the compensation issue pretty frickin' material, don't you think?
Second, the U.S. government isn't even involved in this particular case. In fact, that's the whole point of the Supreme Court's ruling: The Federal Constitution allows it, therefore the Federal Government has no authority to--or interest in--stopping it. And the U.S. Government's name is never going to be on the deed, since the issue is actually between a local government and its citizens. This right here would be the "immaterial" bit of the argument that you're looking for.
Third, while our system recognizes the priority of private propery rights in general, it also recognizes that there are some circumstances where the good of the community is best served by government administration of the property. "Eminent Domain" is a time-honored concept that is reasonably applied on a regular basis.
Finally, what the Supreme Court has said is that if local governments want to apply Eminent Domain in this way, the Federal Constitution doesn't prohibit such an application. In other words, it is up to the local community to devise and apply stricter controls on Eminent Domain if they want to.
Sure, it might be nice if the Constitution and the Supreme Court actually granted the Federal Government the authority to swoop into any local community, override the local government, and apply some stricter standard of Eminent Domain. But then again, it might not be. Surely you're not clamoring for the Feds to interfere more in local politics, are you?
