Sadly, the only way some people will learn that you shouldn’t play with pointed sticks is by having their own eyes gouged out. While you’re at it, you might as well bemoan the fact that people don’t understand the importance of environmental regulations until their own lives are threatened by pollution. Given that the decision which inspired this incident wasn’t unanimous, I think that it can safely be said that there was a lot of room for “creative” interpretation on the part of the justices. If it takes action against their personal property for them to realize the consequences of their ruling, that’s sad, but better those actions are taken, than for the people to stand mute. Had this decision been unanimous, your arguments would have more weight, since that would prove that the laws were quite clear on the matter. With the justices split 5-4 (IIRC), it’s clear that the decision was not based solely on codified laws, but on the interpretation of those laws.
Well, of course it’s revenge. Of course it’s political. That’s the point. Do you think politicians never act out of revenge or aim for personal gain? Come look at politics in the city of Dallas some time, where it’s par for the course to use city resources (including the police) to intimidate people whose businesses compete with businesses owned by supporters of city councilmen. As a result of this decision, all a councilman has to do to get rid of inconvenient competition is force said competition to sell out to his supporter by reason of eminent domain.