Opinion ID: 2555342
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Public Use Status

Text: The primary emphasis in analyzing statutes mandating a determination that property is no longer needed for public use, before transfer to a private owner is permitted, is on the actual nature of the use of the property. [4] Public use is a somewhat vague term and there is `no satisfactory single clear-cut rule ... which can decide all cases....' SENA, 387 Md. at 492, 876 A.2d at 73 (2005) (quoting Green v. High Ridge Ass'n, Inc., 346 Md. 65, 73, 695 A.2d 125, 128 (1997)); see also Prince George's County v. Collington Crossroads, Inc., 275 Md. 171, 181, 339 A.2d 278, 284 (1975) ([E]ven if it were possible to formulate such a rule, it would probably not be prudent to do so.); Riden v. Phila., Balt. & Wash. R.R. Co., 182 Md. 336, 340-41, 35 A.2d 99, 101 (1943) ([C]ourts have striven to formulate a uniform definition, but without success.). The question of whether a use is public, therefore, is for the judiciary, though legislative determinations will be given some weight. See Green, 346 Md. at 73, 695 A.2d at 128-29 (1997) (citations omitted); see also Collington Crossroads, 275 Md. at 181, 339 A.2d at 284 ([T]he Legislature cannot make a use public merely by declaring it so.) (quoting Riden, 182 Md. at 340, 35 A.2d at 101) (citations omitted). A legislative grant of a franchise, as in the present case, or a closure of a road by a county or municipality, as in SENA, does not destroy the public character inherently of the property. Compare Collington Crossroads, 275 Md. at 187, 339 A.2d at 286-87 ([T]he public character of a condemnation is not necessarily changed because a private entity will own the property.) with 420 Md. 172, 21 A.3d 1116 (2011) (Majority op. at 181, 21 A.3d at 1121) (That the County may grant a franchise to provide water services made superfluous the continuing `public use' of the facilities by the County by its lawful action in granting the franchises to Artesian.). Further, stating baldly that the property is no longer needed for public use is not enough to transfer validly public property to a private entity. See, e.g., SENA, 387 Md. at 482, 876 A.2d at 66-67 ([M]ere incantation of the `magic words' of a legal test, as an adherence to form over substance may not cause the Genie to appear and is neither required nor desired if actual consideration ... is apparent....); Faulk v. Ewing, 371 Md. 284, 305, 808 A.2d 1262, 1276 (2002) ([W]e shall not elevate form over substance). A County, town, or municipality (and reviewing courts) must make a determination, based on the facts in the record, that the property is no longer needed in fact for use by the public. [5] In the present case, the Board avoided the public use issue in all of the various letters and meetings prior to the adoption of the resolutions approving the expansion and sale of the franchise. [6] Today, the Majority opinion follows suit. Where the general public uses the property in a continuous manner (as distinguished from the road in SENA ), I would hold that the property is not no longer needed for public use, and, therefore, the local government does not have the authority under § 8(a) to sell or transfer the property in question. Therefore, the Board of Commissioners of Cecil County did not have authorization to sell the water and wastewater facilities, being that the facilities are still in continuous public use. Judge BATTAGLIA and Judge GREENE authorized me to state that they join in the views expressed in this dissenting opinion.