"The property owner should be permitted to wildly inflate the value and to keep the property if he or she doesn't receive that value."
That is what you say, but the Constitution does not say that. It has also never been the case anywhere in the world since the beginning of recorded history.
BTW, I have often had people here post to me about people who were paid nothing for their property. If you have not seen them, you have not been reading.
The Fifth certainly is not very specific. That's why we've been talking about proposing new state constitutional amendments to limit eminent domain.
The Constitution says that land can be taken for public use- that excluded things like private condos. This ruling has changed that, as Justice Thomas noted, making the Public Use clause a practical nullity. The fact that that state and local governments were already going beyond the eminent domain laws does not make this constitutional.