Opinion ID: 2585381
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Preexisting State Law

Text: The fourth Gunwall factor addresses preexisting state law. The State of Washington has a long history of extending greater protections against governmental takings of private property by literally defining what constitutes private use. Before examining preexisting Washington law concerning private versus public use, we first compare the use of terms in relevant federal case law. While Washington case law concerns private/public use the federal cases concern private/public purposes. Case law demonstrates these terms are not synonymous. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly stated one person's property may not be taken for the benefit of another private person without justifying public purpose, even though compensation be paid. Thompson v. Consolidated Gas Utils. Corp., 300 U.S. 55, 80, 57 S.Ct. 364, 376, 81 L.Ed. 510 (1937); Cincinnati v. Vester, 281 U.S. 439, 447, 50 S.Ct. 360, 362, 74 L.Ed. 950 (1930); Madisonville Traction Co. v. St. Bernard Mining Co., 196 U.S. 239, 251-52, 25 S.Ct. 251, 255-56, 49 L.Ed. 462 (1905); Fallbrook Irrigation Dist. v. Bradley, 164 U.S. 112, 159, 17 S.Ct. 56, 63, 41 L.Ed. 369 (1896). However, if the legislature's purpose is legitimate and its means not irrational, a legislative taking can and will withstand a public use challenge provided just compensation is paid. Hawaii Housing Auth. v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229, 242, 104 S.Ct. 2321, 81 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984) (citing Western & Southern Life Ins. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 451 U.S. 648, 671-72, 101 S.Ct. 2070, 2084, 68 L.Ed.2d 514 (1981)). Washington courts, on the other hand, have provided a more restrictive interpretation of public use. In fact, this court has consistently held that a beneficial use is not necessarily a public use. In re Petition of Seattle, 96 Wash.2d 616, 627, 638 P.2d 549 (1981) (citing State ex rel. Oregon-Washington R.R. & Navigation Co. v. Superior Court, 155 Wash. 651, 657-58, 286 P. 33 (1930) and Hogue v. Port of Seattle, 54 Wash.2d 799, 825, 831, 837-38, 341 P.2d 171 (1959)). Accordingly, preexisting state law provides a literal definition of private use. Washington state courts thus provide Washington citizens with enhanced protections against taking private property for private use.