Does “public use” necessitate “public ownership”?
If a government owned turnpike authority can exercise eminent domain to take land to build a publicly used toll road financed by bonds purchased by investors, then could the government exercise eminent domain to take land so that a group of investors can build a publicly used toll road?
“government owned turnpike auth”
Little different scenerio in Texas.
“Regional mobility authorites (RMAs) are not directly accountable to the people of Texas. No voter approval is required for their creation; no voter approval is required for the selection of their board members or staff; no voter approval is required for the selection and funding of their toll projects; nor is voter approval required for “conversion,” as it is called in transportation planner’s language.”
Source: Texastollparty.com
I've done a fair amount of research on this subject, and the answer is yes. The confusion I've seen here on FR occurs when people confuse "public ownership" with "public right to access for free or without other restriction."
To use an extreme example, your land can be condemned in order to build a nuclear power plant (which is a straight-up-and-down "public use"), but it can be operated for a profit by a private entity (subject to contractual conditions) and you cannot simply appear at the gate and demand access "because I'm a taxpayer."