Please answer correct explain plz asap plz

Don't answer by pen paper plz

Assuming that the government has paid or offered to pay just compensation in each case, which of the following actions of government would, nonetheless, be an unconstitutional seizure of privately owned land? Assuming that the government has paid or offered to pay just compensation in each case, which of the following actions of government would, nonetheless, be an unconstitutional seizure of privately owned land? A town takes a privately owned farm and two mansions in order to construct a new school. A state takes a factory building where 100 people are employed in order to widen a road. The federal government takes a 2,000 acre tract of land in rural Northern Virginia so that a private developer can build a new state of the art international airport and direct rail hub. A town takes an entire neighborhood of single and multiple family houses so that a private developer can build a convention complex that the government believes will generate jobs, increase tax revenue and stimulate the local economy. None of the above is unconstitutional