[Always Right]

She said it implied that the Government can take property for public use in so far as there is just compensation. Is this a correct interpretation of the 5th Amendment?

Yes, but calling a hotel a public use is a amazing legal acrobatic maneuver. Prior to that, public use was limited to things like roads, fire stations, jails, etc. Making increased tax revenues a justifiable 'public use' is a stretch that renders the Constitution virtually meaningless.

[maryz]

As Thomas pointed out, that's why they called it a public "purpose" and pretended it meant the same thing.