This was my first impression as well. It seems to me that if you're allowed to spend the $37m to officially "own" the property then it would logically follow that you should be allowed to alter it or decide you don't feel like having random people on it. If not, then the road should be state owned with all surrounding property private.

I recognize that there's complex case-law here that differentiates between those varying shades of grey, but that's just my (unpopular) opinion.