No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The 'taking' of private property is allowed (under the 5th) if it is justly compensated
That's all I know
This from Legal Information Istitute:
Just Compensation Clause
While the federal government has a constitutional right to "take" private property for public use, the Fifth Amendment's Just Compensation Clause requires the government to pay just compensation, interpreted as market value, to the owner of the property. The U.S. Supreme Court has defined fair market value as the most probable price that a willing but unpressured buyer, fully knowledgeable of both the property's good and bad attributes, would pay. The government does not have to pay a property owner's attorney's fees, however, unless a statute so provides.
In Kelo v. City of New London, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a controversial opinion in which they held that a city could constitutionally seize private property for private commercial development. 545 U.S. 469 (2005).
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
this Court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use for the
public. Id., at 244. Rather, it has embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as public purpose. See, e.g., Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U. S. 112, 158164
heart of the case change the meaning of the word is.