That argument strikes me as being not too far removed from the arguments of the New London case. The state can take your land if it will get them more revenue giving it to someone else, and they can do the same with your livlihood.
You are not trying very hard. Two huge gaping holes in your theory: FIRST In New London, they TOOK A GUYS PROPERTY. The ocean is NO ONE"S PROPERTY. What part of this is beyond your comprehension?
SECOND: It's not about government revenue: it's about increasing the opportunity for many more people in the private economy.