A matter of a public taking can be debated by the public authority in its forum of debate and resolution, whether that forum is a council or a legislature. The function of the judicial department is to review, as reqeuested, the process; and to verify or to adjudicate the issue of a public taking and compensation - including price valuation issues.
For that reason, I would join the majorty, but particualrly join Justice Kennedy's concurrence - - which affirms that the Court have more than a simple "'OK' It's a public taking." where the public agency describes its act as a public taking in the legislative finding. The Court, the judicial power, must assess and find a rational basis for the taking .. as the Connecticut Supreme Court did find the New London City Council did. That protects the minority landowner, as well as the public taking nature of condemnation, from caprice, and a tyranny of the majority -- including populism.
It is well settled, as known by this Hawaiian law reding lawyer -- that a public taking can address oligarchic and monopolistic, as well as economic purposive issues -- even where the beneficiary is another ultimate private property owner after re-distribuition or subdivision.
Justice Thoams raises an interesting issue in dissent ..wherein he prefers a measurement of the actual public re-benefitted by the property tranfers. But that again is for the legislative forum - the elected public actor/agent .. and its activity must be by rational -honest- process ..not simply by scheming, deceit or pretext.
The US Supreme Court opinion - on the WWW by FindLaw.com follows below:
FindLaw.com reportof the case opinion -click here
|
