I may not disagree with you but where does the U.S. Constitution say that? The Connecticut legislature passed a law saying that that under certain situations using eminent domain to take private property and turning it over to private companies constituted public use. The state courts said that doing so didn't violate the state constitution. Agree or disagree, it is the right of the state to define 'public use' that way if they want to since the U.S. Constitution does not define it for them. And having chosen their course the U.S. Supreme Court should not have overruled them.
By using the word "public" in Amendment V: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "
I'm pretty certain public means exactly what the framers meant - and not to fill the coffers by selling your private property, taken under the color of eminent domain, regardless of compensation, to another private entity, so you can get more tax money.
The city's use of eminent domain (public use) to get it was wrong on all accounts.