Opinion ID: 848684
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: for the use or benefit of the public

Text: A condemnation that is necessary for a public purpose within the scope of the condemning authority's powers must also be for the use or benefit of the public in order to be valid under MCL 213.23. There is ample evidence in the record that the Pinnacle Project would benefit the public. The development is projected to bring jobs to the struggling local economy, add to tax revenues and thereby increase the resources available for public services, and attract investors and businesses to the area, thereby reinvigorating the local economy. In fact, defendants do not dispute that the proposed condemnations would benefit the public. Instead, relying on City of Lansing v. Edward Rose Realty, Inc., [41] defendants argue that the benefits that private parties will receive through the Pinnacle Project outweigh any benefits that the general public is likely to receive and, therefore, that plaintiff has failed to establish a public use or benefit. The two Edward Rose passages on which defendants rely, however, concern issues quite distinct from those under consideration here. The Edward Rose Court first engaged in a balancing of public and private interests in addressing whether a city ordinance authorizing the condemnation of private property was a legitimate exercise of the general authority conferred upon Lansing as a home rule city. [42] The Court then returned to the balancing of public and private interests when evaluating the city's ordinance under the heightened scrutiny test of Poletown. [43] Neither passage concerns the meaning of the phrase public benefit, much less the meaning of public benefit as used in MCL 213.23. Moreover, Edward Rose nowhere suggests that the public use or benefit element of MCL 213.23 requires a balancing of public and private benefits, or that public benefits must predominate over private ones under this statute. As such, defendants have failed to persuade us that the proposed condemnations will fail to provide a public benefit within the meaning of MCL 213.23. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, we conclude that the condemnations sought by Wayne County are consistent with MCL 213.23 and that this statute is a separate and independent grant of eminent domain authority to public corporations such as Wayne County. If the authority to condemn private property conferred by the Legislature lacked any constitutional limits, this Court would be compelled to affirm the decisions of the circuit court and the Court of Appeals. But our state Constitution does, in fact, limit the state's power of eminent domain. Therefore, it must be determined whether the proposed condemnations pass constitutional muster.