The 5th Amendment to the US Constitution isn't only about your right to "plead the fifth" to not incriminate yourself. The last two clauses say:
...nor [shall any person] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
So the Fifth Amendment clearly implies that private property can be taken for public use if the owner has been given due process (a trial). This is the power of eminent domain that governments use to acquire land for public projects. But should it be turned over to a private company? An old Colorado law (CRS 38-2-101) does just that. ANY corporation formed to build a toll road has the power of eminent domain. It doesn't have to be a good plan nor a needed road nor a responsible party. Anyone with a hare-brained idea for a toll road has the governmental power to seize your property.
Life, liberty or property. Hopefully the Colorado government will never give the power to execute people to a corporation. Hopefully the Colorado government will never give the power to imprison people to a corporation (this is very different from operating a prison for the State). But they gave the power to take property to corporations a long time ago. What's the difference? The framers of the Constitution named them in one phrase. Surely they didn't mean that the first two (life and liberty) were sacred but the third (property) wasn't really important. My conclusion?