Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P initiated actions to condemn nineteen parcels of land immediately south of Metropolitan Airport. The owners of those parcels, Ds, maintain that these condemnations lack statutory authorization and exceed constitutional bounds. P's recent renovations of Metropolitan Airport produced a new terminal and jet runway. This also raised concerns that noise from increased air traffic would plague neighboring landowners. P, funded by a partial grant of $21 million from the FAA, began a program of purchasing neighboring properties through voluntary sales. P purchased approximately five hundred acres in nonadjacent plots scattered in a checkerboard pattern throughout an area south of Metropolitan Airport. P's agreement with the FAA provided that any properties acquired through the noise abatement program were to be put to economically productive use. P developed the idea of constructing a large business and technology park with a conference center, hotel accommodations, and a recreational facility. The 'Pinnacle Project' was born. The Pinnacle Project is a state-of-the-art business and technology park in a 1,300-acre area adjacent to Metropolitan Airport. P claims it will create thousands of jobs and tens of millions of dollars in tax revenue, and broaden P's tax base. According to expert testimony, it is anticipated that the Pinnacle Project will create thirty thousand jobs and add $350 million in tax revenue for the county. P planned to construct the business and technology park in a 1,300-acre area that included the five hundred acres purchased under the federally funded noise abatement program. P began anew to solicit voluntary sales from area landowners. This round of sales negotiations enabled the county to purchase an additional five hundred acres within the project area. As for the remaining 46 parcels representing 300 acres established in a checkerboard pattern within the 1,300-acre parcel, P then adopted a Resolution of Necessity and Declaration of Taking (Resolution of Necessity) authorizing the acquisition of the remaining three hundred acres needed for the Pinnacle Project. The properties were appraised, and P issued written offers based on these appraisals to the property owners. Twenty-seven more property owners accepted these offers and sold their parcels to the county. Nineteen additional parcels were still needed for the Pinnacle Project. These properties, owned by Ds, are the subject of the present condemnation actions. P initiated condemnation actions. Each D filed a motion to review the necessity of the proposed condemnations. Ds argued, first, that the county lacked statutory authority to exercise the power of eminent domain in this manner. Second, that acquisition of the subject properties was not necessary as required by statute. Finally, they challenged the constitutionality of these condemnation actions, maintaining that the Pinnacle Project would not serve a public purpose. The trial court affirmed P's determination of necessity. Ds appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. This appeal resulted.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co