Opinion ID: 901068
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether the City's finding of necessity for condemnation of Finn's property was an abuse of discretion.

Text: [¶ 19.] The trial court found that the City abused its discretion in finding necessity as a basis to condemn the Finn's property. (M)uch latitude is given to the corporation vested with the right of acquiring property by eminent domain to determine the extent of the property necessary to be taken.... Basin Elec. Power Co-op. v. Payne, 298 N.W.2d 385, 388 (S.D. 1980) (citing Otter Tail Power Company v. Malme, 92 N.W.2d 514, 521 (N.D.1958)). This Court has said, [w]hen condemning authorities face competing considerations, they do not abuse their discretion if their choices are reasonable in light of logic and evidence. Salis, 2001 SD 84, ¶ 18, 630 N.W.2d at 704. A choice to condemn must grossly violate fact and logic or be wholly arbitrary to support a finding of abuse of discretion. Id. [¶ 20.] The trial court found that the City abused its discretion in condemning Finn's property because there was no public necessity for the taking. The City claims that the condemnation was necessary to provide access to the section line and to facilitate public travel. As early as 1978, the City was aware of the difficulties it would face by building a road for ingress and egress from Wildwood to other developments. A 1978 staff report indicated that after investigation of development potential and proposed road grades, the engineer recommended that a collector system be developed from the north, Corral Drive, and from the south, Sheridan Lake Road. Knowing that a prior report recommended no extension of collector streets in Wildwood, the City proceeded with its plan to extend the street without conducting further studies to determine whether a road on the access easement was feasible. No geotechnical analysis, drainage studies, or traffic studies were conducted by the City. The City presented no roadway plans prior to condemning the property. Although the City had previously told Hamm that it required a drainage study in order to consider his request to dedicate the easement to the public, the City did no drainage study before condemning the property. [¶ 21.] Evidence at trial revealed that a road built on the condemned sixty-six foot easement could not meet City standards. The road would not meet standards because: (1) a street would create double front lots, (2) the proposed road would extend ten feet into Finn's home, and (3) the geographical terrain would not accommodate a road that would meet City standards. Two of the City Engineers indicated it was a poor place to put a road. Eventually, the City was forced to concede that a road could not be built to City standards within the sixty-six foot easement. The City Project Manager admitted that in order to construct a street that would meet City specifications, the street would have to be relocated and would encompass far more than the sixty-six foot access easement. Notwithstanding the road's relocation and widening, the street still may not meet the minimum standards. [¶ 22.] Based upon the evidence, we cannot say that the trial court's findings were clearly erroneous. Nor can we say that the trial court erred in concluding that the City abused its discretion in finding public necessity as a basis for the taking. [¶ 23.] We affirm. [¶ 24.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and SABERS, and ZINTER, Justices, and SRSTKA, Circuit Judge, concur. [¶ 25.] SRSTKA, Circuit Judge, sitting for KONENKAMP, Justice, disqualified. SRSTKA, Circuit Judge (concurring). [¶ 26.] I concur in the majority opinion in all respects. I add this opinion to comment on SDCL 21-35-10.1 and our affirming the use of that statute by the trial court to overturn a city's declaration of taking. [¶ 27.] At first blush our opinion appears to beat a retreat from the traditional deference given by the courts to the legislative branch of the government when it delegates the power of eminent domain. Basin Elec. Power Co-op. v. Payne, 298 N.W.2d 385, 388 (S.D.1980)(citing Otter Tail Power Company v. Malme, 92 N.W.2d 514, 521 (N.D.1958)). [¶ 28.] The Constitution of South Dakota, art. VI, § 13, and art. XVII, § 18, by implication if not direction, limit the use eminent domain to acquire property in the public interest. [¶ 29.] Article VI, § 13 reads in part: Private property shall not be taken for public use, or damaged, without just compensation, which will be determined according to legal procedure established by the legislature and according to § 6 of this article. [¶ 30.] Article XVII, § 18, reads in part: Municipal and other corporations and individuals invested with the privilege of taking private property for public use shall make just compensation for property taken, injured or destroyed, by the construction or enlargement of their works, highways or improvements, which compensation shall be paid or secured before such taking, injury or destruction. [¶ 31.] A brief historical review of the relationship between the judiciary and the legislative branch when it delegates the power eminent domain discloses that by the middle of the Twentieth Century, the courts had almost totally yielded overview of takings and ceded to the legislative branch the power to define what was taking for a public purpose. [¶ 32.] Although the determination of whether a use is public or not is said to be a judicial question, the courts have moved so far from the idea that actual use by an appreciable part of the public is a requisite to public purpose, toward a conclusion that if any public purpose is served public use is unnecessary, that it is almost correct to say that the question of whether a taking of land is for a public use is a legislative and not a judicial one see United States ex rel. T.V.A. v. Welch, 327 U.S. 546, 66 S.Ct. 715, 90 L.Ed. 843 (1946). Thus, use of the condemnation power has been upheld where the purpose was to clear slums, beautify and area, construct low-cost housing, provide off-street parking and promote industrialization. Encyclopedia Britannica, 1963, Volume 8, Eminent Domain p. 336.