News > Editorial Opinions
Showing public benefit of land
Just how far do the powers of municipalities go to taking over privately-owned land for a private development?
This is a question the U.S. Supreme Court seemed to answer earlier this year when it ruled on a 5-4 decision that cities have broad power to bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development to generate tax revenue.
That ruling left us uneasy, mostly because of the power it gives cities to determine what property it would like and make an effort to get it. It also seemed to widen city government's role in advocating private development.
But a Maricopa County Superior Court judge earlier this month went against that thought. He ruled the city of Tempe didn't have the right to seize privately owned land for a shopping complex. The judge, Kenneth Fields, rejected the city's argument about the public benefit of the land.
"The anticipated private purposes and benefits outweigh any public benefit or purpose," the judge wrote in his ruling. "Profit, not public improvement, is the motivating force for this redevelopment."
Fields' ruling wasn't the only one on eminent domain in Arizona. The Court of Appeals ruled in October 2003 that the city of Mesa failed to demonstrate the public benefits from condemnation of a family owned brake shop saying it would not outweigh the private nature of the planned use of a downtown site for a new hardware store, according to an Associated Press report.
The judges' rulings help ease our concern that the Supreme Court's ruling will be taken and used again and again by municipalities to get property it would like to see developed. Instead, the ruling shows cities will have a tougher road to get the property because they'll have to show the benefit to the public.
We believe property owners should have a right to determine if they want to sell the property, and, if not, then the property can remain as is.
Businesspeople have much to gain by partnering with a city to get property, and so do cities. New developments can draw people and continuing development in ever-tightening city limits, especially in Tempe and Mesa, is a reality.
If there is a case that benefits the public, we believe cities should prove it to the people. We have a tough time believing shopping malls and other development will always be beneficial to the public. Because of this, we believe property owners have a protection from outright condemnation by a government.
This is a question the U.S. Supreme Court seemed to answer earlier this year when it ruled on a 5-4 decision that cities have broad power to bulldoze people's homes to make way for shopping malls or other private development to generate tax revenue.
That ruling left us uneasy, mostly because of the power it gives cities to determine what property it would like and make an effort to get it. It also seemed to widen city government's role in advocating private development.
But a Maricopa County Superior Court judge earlier this month went against that thought. He ruled the city of Tempe didn't have the right to seize privately owned land for a shopping complex. The judge, Kenneth Fields, rejected the city's argument about the public benefit of the land.
"The anticipated private purposes and benefits outweigh any public benefit or purpose," the judge wrote in his ruling. "Profit, not public improvement, is the motivating force for this redevelopment."
Fields' ruling wasn't the only one on eminent domain in Arizona. The Court of Appeals ruled in October 2003 that the city of Mesa failed to demonstrate the public benefits from condemnation of a family owned brake shop saying it would not outweigh the private nature of the planned use of a downtown site for a new hardware store, according to an Associated Press report.
The judges' rulings help ease our concern that the Supreme Court's ruling will be taken and used again and again by municipalities to get property it would like to see developed. Instead, the ruling shows cities will have a tougher road to get the property because they'll have to show the benefit to the public.
We believe property owners should have a right to determine if they want to sell the property, and, if not, then the property can remain as is.
Businesspeople have much to gain by partnering with a city to get property, and so do cities. New developments can draw people and continuing development in ever-tightening city limits, especially in Tempe and Mesa, is a reality.
If there is a case that benefits the public, we believe cities should prove it to the people. We have a tough time believing shopping malls and other development will always be beneficial to the public. Because of this, we believe property owners have a protection from outright condemnation by a government.
Copyright © 2012 - Arizona Range News