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."
The United States is the only industrialized nation whose freight railroads are privately owned and operated. The land to build the railroads was acquired by exercise of eminent domain. A group of investors would seek and receive a charter from the state government to build a route from point A to point B. Much of the funding for these projects came from European state banks (Bank of England in particular). This investor driven approach to serving a legitimate public need was used because the government did not have and could not obtain the capital necessary to build the railroads. I imagine there are not many freepers who would support nationalization of the railroads.
Does a proposed project serve a legitimate public use? If so then why does it matter who owns it?