Basic Energy Corp. v. Hamilton County
1995 WL 147367, 652 So.2d 1237 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipality may exercise its eminent domain power only for a valid "municipal purpose," which must relate to the conduct of municipal government, functions, or services particular to its inhabitants, and not primarily for a broader state interest, unless expressly prohibited by law.
Facts:
- The City of Jasper and Hamilton County formed a Prison Task Force with the goal of attracting additional prison industry to their area.
- The City of Jasper initiated eminent domain proceedings to acquire property owned by Basic Energy Corporation.
- The city's clear intention was to acquire Basic Energy Corporation's property and subsequently donate it to the State of Florida.
- A state correctional facility was contemplated for the site, which the city manager confirmed would be a state prison, not a city or county jail.
- The City of Jasper would not be involved in the operation or management of the proposed state prison.
- The prison expansion was projected to provide 1100 additional prison beds and 300 jobs for local citizens, and add 20% to the city's utility revenues, aligning with the city's economic development strategy.
Procedural Posture:
- The City of Jasper initiated eminent domain proceedings in a state trial court against Basic Energy Corporation's property.
- The trial court found that the city was authorized to acquire the property by eminent domain for the public purpose of jail or correctional facilities, and that the property was necessary for constructing a jail.
- Basic Energy Corporation (appellant) appealed the trial court's non-final orders to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, challenging the validity of the city's purpose for exercising eminent domain.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a city's authority to construct jails provide a valid municipal purpose for the exercise of its eminent domain power when the city intends to acquire and donate the condemned property to the State of Florida for the construction of a state prison facility, rather than a city jail?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, a city's authority to construct jails does not provide a valid basis for the exercise of its eminent domain power when the city intends to acquire and donate the condemned property to the State of Florida for the construction of a state prison facility. The court explained that a municipality's power, including eminent domain, must be exercised for a valid "municipal purpose," as mandated by Article VIII, section 2 of the Florida Constitution and precedent like City of Ocala v. Nye. A municipal purpose must relate to the conduct of municipal government, the exercise of a municipal function, or the provision of a municipal service, generally serving the health, morals, safety, protection, or welfare of the municipality, as established in cases such as State v. City of Orlando and Ormond Beach v. County of Volusia. The court found that the purpose of providing state correctional facilities was not a municipal purpose because it was no more particular to the residents of Jasper than to any other inhabitants of the state, despite incidental local benefits. The court further distinguished between "jails" (which municipalities are authorized to construct under Section 180.06, Florida Statutes) and "prisons," noting their different legal definitions and roles within the state correctional system. Since the City of Jasper intended to facilitate a state prison and not a city jail, and the asserted purpose was not distinctly municipal, it did not support the exercise of eminent domain.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the limits of municipal eminent domain powers, emphasizing that such power must be strictly construed and exercised for purposes directly serving the municipality's distinct functions and inhabitants. It sets a precedent requiring a clear nexus between the condemnation's purpose and a specific municipal function, distinguishing it from broader state interests or general economic development goals not formally asserted. Future cases will likely scrutinize the asserted public purpose more rigorously, particularly when a municipality seeks to condemn land for transfer to another governmental entity, ensuring the proposed use truly constitutes a 'municipal purpose' and not merely an incidental local benefit.
