County of Wayne v. Hathcock
684 N.W.2d 765 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The transfer of condemned property to a private entity for the purpose of economic development does not constitute a 'public use' under the Michigan Constitution. A taking for a 'public use' that will be privately owned is only constitutionally permissible if it involves a public necessity of the extreme sort, the property remains under public oversight, or the condemnation itself remedies a problem of public significance like blight.
Facts:
- After a major renovation of Metropolitan Airport, Wayne County became concerned about noise impacting neighboring properties.
- Using federal funds, the county initiated a voluntary program to purchase neighboring properties, acquiring approximately 500 acres in non-adjacent plots.
- The county's agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration required that the acquired properties be put to economically productive use.
- To fulfill this mandate, the county developed a plan for the 'Pinnacle Project,' a 1,300-acre business and technology park intended to create jobs and increase tax revenue.
- The county purchased an additional 500 acres through a second round of voluntary sales from landowners within the project area.
- To complete the project, the county still needed 46 parcels owned by the defendants, which were scattered throughout the planned development area.
- After concluding that further voluntary purchases would be futile, the Wayne County Commission authorized the use of eminent domain to acquire the remaining properties.
- The county's plan was to transfer the condemned properties to various private entities for the construction and operation of the business park.
Procedural Posture:
- Wayne County initiated condemnation actions against the defendant property owners in the Wayne Circuit Court (trial court).
- The property owners filed motions to review the necessity of the proposed condemnations.
- Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court affirmed the county’s determination of necessity, ruling that the takings served a public purpose as defined by the precedent in Poletown.
- The property owners (appellants) appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding itself bound by the Poletown precedent.
- The property owners (appellants) were granted leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court (highest court).
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 the condemnation of private property for the purpose of developing a business and technology park, which will be owned and operated by private entities for economic development, constitute a 'public use' under Article 10, § 2 of the Michigan Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Young, J.
No. The condemnation of private property for transfer to a private entity to promote economic development does not constitute a 'public use' under the Michigan Constitution. The court found that while the takings were authorized under the broad 'public purpose' language of the relevant statute, they failed to meet the narrower 'public use' requirement of the state constitution. Analyzing pre-1963 eminent domain jurisprudence, the court determined that the common understanding of 'public use' at the time of the constitution's ratification permitted transfers to private entities only under three specific circumstances: 1) for 'public necessity of the extreme sort' like railroads, 2) where the property remains subject to public oversight, or 3) where the condemnation itself serves a public purpose, such as clearing a blighted area. The Pinnacle Project met none of these criteria. The court explicitly overruled its prior decision in Poletown Neighborhood Council v. Detroit, which had held that generalized economic benefits could justify a taking for private use, reasoning that such a broad interpretation would render the 'public use' limitation meaningless.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Weaver, J.
No. The proposed condemnations violate the 'public use' limitation, but the majority's method of interpretation is flawed. The court should ascertain the 'common understanding of the people' who ratified the constitution, not the esoteric understanding of those 'sophisticated in the law.' The majority’s approach is elitist and invites judicial distortion of constitutional protections. The common-sense meaning of 'public use,' readily understood by ordinary citizens, does not include taking one person’s property to give to another for private profit, regardless of any incidental public benefits like job creation.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Cavanagh, J.
No. The court correctly overrules Poletown, as its reasoning was flawed. However, this new rule should not be applied retroactively to this case. Wayne County acted in good faith reliance on the Poletown precedent, which was the controlling law at the time, and invested approximately $50 million in the project. It is unjust to penalize the county and its taxpayers for following the court's prior guidance. Therefore, the decision to overrule Poletown should apply prospectively only.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant strengthening of private property rights in Michigan by explicitly overruling the controversial Poletown precedent. It rejects the broad interpretation that generalized economic benefits can satisfy the constitutional 'public use' requirement for eminent domain. By establishing a clear, historically-grounded three-part test, the court severely limited the power of government to condemn property for private economic development projects. This ruling prefigured the national debate later ignited by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London and influenced subsequent state-level legislative reforms aimed at curbing eminent domain abuse.
Unlock the full brief for County of Wayne v. Hathcock