Coliseum Square Ass'n v. City of New Orleans
544 So.2d 351, 1989 WL 66299 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A home rule municipality may close a public street and lease it to a private entity if the governing body determines, in a non-arbitrary and non-capricious manner, that the street is no longer needed for public purposes. The mere fact that a street is currently in use does not legally preclude a finding that it is no longer 'needed' for public purposes.
Facts:
- Trinity Church owns all property on both sides of the 2100 block of Chestnut Street in New Orleans.
- The church operates Trinity School on the property, with academic buildings on one side of the street and a playground and gym on the other, requiring students to cross frequently.
- Since 1972, the City of New Orleans had authorized the school to temporarily close the block with gates during school hours for student safety.
- Trinity Church proposed to permanently acquire the block via a long-term lease to unify its campus, improve student safety, and expand its play area.
- A traffic impact analysis found that an average of 505 vehicles used the block daily, with about 44% being school-related, and that the displaced traffic could be accommodated on adjacent streets.
- The New Orleans City Planning Commission held public hearings and, after weighing benefits against adverse impacts, recommended leasing the street block to Trinity Church.
- The City Council held its own hearing and subsequently passed Ordinance Number 11,776, finding the block was no longer needed for a public purpose and authorizing a 60-year lease to Trinity Church.
Procedural Posture:
- Coliseum Square Association and other interested parties filed suit against the City of New Orleans in trial court, seeking to enjoin the street closure and have the authorizing ordinance declared void.
- The trial court denied the plaintiffs' petition for a permanent injunction, ruling that the City Council acted within its authority and was not arbitrary or capricious.
- The plaintiffs appealed to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, which affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of Louisiana for a writ of certiorari.
- On original hearing, the Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and granted the injunction.
- The City of New Orleans and Trinity Church (appellees) were granted a rehearing by the Supreme Court of Louisiana.
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 home rule municipality act within its legal authority when it closes a public street that is currently in use and leases it to a private entity, after determining through a non-arbitrary and non-capricious process that the street is no longer needed for public purposes?
Opinions:
Majority - Marcus, J.
Yes. A home rule municipality has the authority to close and lease a public street after making a non-arbitrary and non-capricious determination that the street is no longer needed for public use. The Louisiana Constitution grants home rule governments broad powers over local affairs, and state statutes (La.R.S. 33:4712) and the New Orleans Home Rule Charter explicitly authorize the leasing of public property deemed by the governing authority to be 'not needed for public purposes.' The critical distinction is between 'use' and 'need'; they are relative terms, and a street may be in use but not be 'needed' when the benefits of its closure outweigh the inconvenience. The City Council's decision was not arbitrary or capricious because it was based on a thorough review process, including a traffic study and public hearings, where it weighed the public benefits of student safety and campus improvement against the manageable impact on local traffic. Courts must not substitute their own judgment for the discretionary, legislative decision of the Council unless there is a clear abuse of power, which was not present here.
Dissenting - Watson, J.
No. The City cannot lease public property that is currently being substantially used by the public to a private entity under the pretext that it is no longer needed for public purposes. When a public street is actively used by hundreds of vehicles daily, it is, by definition, serving a public purpose. A legislative declaration that it is 'no longer needed' in such circumstances is a legal fiction that improperly diverts a public thing to private use, contrary to long-standing principles of public trust.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the authority of home rule municipalities in Louisiana to manage and dispose of public property, including streets, based on their own legislative determinations of public need. It establishes that judicial review of such decisions is highly deferential, limited to the 'arbitrary and capricious' standard. By distinguishing between 'use' and 'need,' the court provides municipalities with significant flexibility to repurpose public land for economic development, public-private partnerships, or other goals deemed beneficial to the community, even if it means discontinuing a current public use. This precedent weakens challenges based solely on the fact that a street is still being used, shifting the legal focus to the rationality of the government's decision-making process.
