I don't understand your reasoning.
The use of "public benefit" to argue property cases opens up a whole new can of worms.
Public benefit would open property to endless abuse under a doctrine of the common good. Public benefit could mean anything, to anyone, at anytime. Public benefit appears to be nothing more than the American version of the Marxist "common good."
Under the common good, or public benefit, the good of the group would constantly trump the rights of the individual. Group rights or public good are rampant in socialist/totalitarian governments.
On the other hand, public use severely restricts the condemnation of land under eminent domain. Public use restricts the seizure of property to things like schools or roads. In the USSC decision the court clearly, and wrongly in my opinion, used the concept of "common good" to allow the seizure of private property. It's certainly not a "public use" to seize property and give it to a developer to build an office or a factory. The public cannot use a factory or office.
I'd like to see your reasoning in using "public benefit" to fight property rights cases.
I'm telling you that the private use argument isn't working, it isn't a winner. Now you can complain that the alternative is bad, but you sure aren't winning with the pitcher ya got. Time to change pitchers.