Opinion ID: 2517173
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Constitutional Validity of Extraterritorial Condemnation for Open Space and Parks

Text: The question of whether the extraterritorial condemnation of property for open space and parks constitutes a lawful, public, local, and municipal purpose within the scope of article XX is a question of first impression for this court. Before we examine this question, however, we first address the Corporation's contention that the proper inquiry is whether the eminent domain power is being exercised pursuant to a purely local and municipal purpose. The Corporation concedes that the extraterritorial condemnation of property to create open space and parks constitutes a lawful, public purpose. However, the Corporation contends that this purpose is outside of the scope of article XX because it is not purely local and municipal. The Corporation would have us weigh the competing state and local concerns implicated by an extraterritorial condemnation for open space and park purposes. The Corporation would then have us hold that because such a condemnation implicates statewide concerns, it cannot constitute a local and municipal purpose within the meaning of article XX. We decline to adopt this line of reasoning, as it conflates the matter of the scope of the article XX eminent domain power with the preemption analysis we use to determine the effect of a conflicting state statute on the acts of a home rule city. As we will discuss in part 2.C. below, a state statute may preempt a conflicting municipal act where sufficient statewide concerns are implicated. See, e.g., Town of Telluride v. Lot Thirty-Four Venture, 3 P.3d 30, 37 (Colo.2000); City & County of Denver v. State, 788 P.2d 764, 767 (Colo.1990). However, the weighing of competing state and local concerns is not necessary to construe the scope of the condemnation power in article XX, nor is it appropriate. Article XX expressly authorizes home rule municipalities to condemn property outside of their territorial boundaries, necessarily implicating interests which are not purely local. Where the constitution specifically authorizes a municipal action which potentially implicates statewide concerns, the municipality's exercise of that prerogative is not outside the bounds of its authority. Cf. Town of Frisco v. Baum, 90 P.3d 845, 849 (Colo.2004) (holding that a municipality may exercise its jurisdiction to address local and municipal matters in municipal court  even though this exercise may affect the jurisdiction of the state's district courts and thus implicate a matter of statewide concern  because the constitution has specifically provided for such an outcome). We therefore conclude that the extraterritorial condemnation of property need not be pursuant to a purpose that is purely local and municipal. As long as the condemnation is based on a lawful, public, local, and municipal purpose, it cannot be said to fall outside of the scope of article XX merely because it potentially implicates competing state interests. Hence, we return to the question of whether extraterritorial condemnation for open space and parks constitutes a lawful, public, local, and municipal purpose within the scope of article XX. Our past cases do not adopt a uniform standard for what constitutes a lawful, public, local, and municipal purpose, perhaps because of the difficulty of capturing the permissible range of local and municipal projects with a static test. [2] Compare, e.g., McNichols v. City & County of Denver, 101 Colo. 316, 324, 74 P.2d 99, 103 (1937) (The test is whether the power, if exercised, will promote the general objects and purposes of the municipality.), with City & County of Denver v. Sweet, 138 Colo. 41, 49, 329 P.2d 441, 445 (1958) (Whether a particular business activity is a matter of municipal concern to a city under article XX depends upon the inherent nature of the activity and the impact or effect which it may have or may not have upon areas outside of the municipality.). Although we recognize the absence of a uniform standard to aid us in our determination, upon review of pertinent Colorado law, and considering our state tradition of conducting land planning at the local level, we conclude that condemnation for open space and parks is in fact a lawful, public, local, and municipal purpose within the scope of article XX. Turning first to our review of pertinent Colorado law, we place reliance on the time-honored premise that article XX vests in home rule municipalities every power which the legislature could have conferred. Bd. Of Comm'rs, 113 Colo. at 156, 156 P.2d at 103 (If the General Assembly can confer a power upon any [statutory] city . . . a charter city, such as Denver, already possesses the power without legislative action.). In past cases examining the constitutional validity of a home rule municipality's condemnation purpose, we have often inquired whether the legislature could have conferred upon the municipality the power to condemn for that purpose. See, e.g., id.; Fishel, 106 Colo. at 584, 108 P.2d at 241; Londoner v. City & County of Denver, 52 Colo. 15, 23, 119 P. 156, 159 (1911); Hallett, 34 Colo. at 398, 83 P. at 1068. In this inquiry, we have considered statutes where the legislature has in fact conferred condemnation powers for the purpose in question. For example, in Board of Commissioners, we considered a statute that authorized municipalities to acquire and construct airports within five miles of their municipal boundaries to constitute evidence that extraterritorial condemnation for airports is a proper local and municipal purpose under article XX. 113 Colo. at 156, 156 P.2d at 103. Applying the same inquiry, we find that the General Assembly has on multiple occasions conferred authority to statutory towns and cities to condemn land for parks, recreation, or open space. See, e.g., § 29-7-104, -107, C.R.S. (2007) (granting municipal corporations the authority to condemn property for park or recreational purposes or for the preservation or conservation of sites, scenes, open space and vistas); § 32-1-1005(1)(c), C.R.S. (2007) (granting parks and recreational districts the power to condemn for access to park and recreational facilities.). Two statutes specify that a condemnation for open space or parks can be extraterritorial. Section 31-25-201(1), C.R.S. (2007), grants cities the authority to condemn extraterritorially as in the judgment of the governing body of such city may be necessary for park or recreational purposes, parkways, and open space within five miles of a city's boundaries. Section 38-6-110, C.R.S. (2007), grants cities the authority to condemn for park purposes outside city boundaries, subject to section 31-25-201(1). In sum, the General Assembly's ability to confer upon municipalities the power to condemn for parks and open space is evidenced by the numerous statutes which in fact confer that power, thus confirming that parks and open space are lawful, public, local, and municipal purposes within the scope of article XX. Second, we recognize that land use policy traditionally has been a local government function in the state, see Town of Telluride, 3 P.3d at 39 n. 9 (noting that land use is traditionally regulated by local government), and that Colorado municipalities are active in incorporating open space, parks, and recreation into their land planning. In addition to the statutory towns and cities that have acted to preserve open space pursuant to the statutes described above, many Colorado home rule municipalities of all sizes and geographies manage extensive open space programs. [3] More pertinent to the case at hand, a number of these home rule municipalities have seen fit to acquire open space outside their municipal boundaries. [4] Local planning for open space and park land acquisition and development is a particularly important tool in the state's mountain resort communities, where unprecedented growth places pressure on the environmental qualities and recreational assets upon which these communities depend. [5] We conclude that municipalities, neighboring counties, and the state have traditionally acted on the presumption that land planning for open space and parks is a local government function. [6] Based on the Colorado statutes that authorize statutory localities to condemn land for open space, parks, and recreation, as well as the traditional exercise of this power by the state's statutory and home rule municipalities, we hold that the extraterritorial condemnation of property for open space, parks, and recreation constitutes a lawful, public, local, and municipal purpose within the scope of article XX. [7]