Opinion ID: 1537255
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Portland Company's Constitutional Claims

Text: [¶ 24] The City took the track rights pursuant to 23 M.R.S. §§ 3022, 3023 (2008); and 30-A M.R.S. § 3101 (2005); [2] and made findings as to both public exigency and public use. The Maine Constitution, article I, section 21, states: Private property shall not be taken for public uses without just compensation; nor unless the public exigencies require it. [¶ 25] We review directly the decision of the municipality in this appeal under M.R. Civ. P. 80B. See Nestle Waters N. Am., Inc. v. Town of Fryeburg, 2009 ME 30, 32, ¶ 967 A.2d 702, 712. We review a municipality's legislative finding of public exigency solely to determine whether there was abuse of the process by which the finding of public exigency was made: A taking by eminent domain will not be reversed on appeal absent a showing that the power of eminent domain has been abused. Although a legislative determination that the taking was for a public purpose is a judicially reviewable decision, a finding of public exigency is not reviewable by the courts unless there was no rational basis to support a finding that an exigency existed. Fuller v. Town of Searsport, 543 A.2d 361, 363 (Me.1988) (citation omitted). A finding of public exigency involves a determination that the taking was necessary; the property interest was taken only to the extent necessary; and the property is suitable for the particular public use for which it was taken. Dyer v. Dep't of Transp., 2008 ME 106, ¶ 19, 951 A.2d 821, 826-27. In an eminent domain action, a property owner has no constitutional right to have the question of public exigency judicially reviewed, except to determine whether the governmental authority acted in bad faith or abused its power. Id. ¶ 19, 951 A.2d at 827. [¶ 26] The Portland Company challenges the City's finding of public exigency on three grounds, all of which we reject. The Portland Company's first argument relates to parcels A-1 and A-2. The Portland Company contends that the City abused its condemnation power by unduly pressuring the Portland Company into reaching an agreement with Riverwalk. This allegation, even if proved, would not form a valid basis for a challenge to a finding of public exigency. To pursue a claim for judicial review, the property owner must allege an abuse of the process by which the governmental entity determined that a public exigency exists. Id. ¶ 19, 951 A.2d at 826-27. The Portland Company makes no such allegation; rather, it alleges that the City abused the process by coercing the Portland Company to reach an agreement with Riverwalk. The Portland Company's coercion claim must be brought, if at all, pursuant to 23 M.R.S. § 154-B, rather than as a challenge to the finding of public exigency. [¶ 27] The Portland Company's second challenge to the finding of public exigency relates to parcel A-1. The Portland Company argues that the City presented no evidence that it would not be safe to have railroad tracks cross the Hancock Street Extension, and the City did not perform any analysis as to whether there would be safety issues associated with a track crossing over that street. We reject this argument because it relates to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the finding of public exigency; it does not involve an allegation of abuse of the process by which the finding of public exigency was made. We do not review public exigency findings for sufficiency of the evidence. See Dyer, 2008 ME 106, ¶ 19, 951 A.2d at 826-27. [¶ 28] The Portland Company's third challenge to the finding of public exigency relates to parcel A-3. The Portland Company argues that there is no public exigency with respect to that parcel because the City has no specific project planned for it, and because the City admitted that parcel A-3 would continue to be used for surface parking. We reject these arguments because they do not amount to an allegation of abuse, and therefore the Portland Company is not entitled to judicial review of the finding of public exigency with respect to parcel A-3. See id. [¶ 29] We turn next to the Portland Company's challenge to the finding that all three parcels were taken for a public use. We review de novo the determination whether the use for which a taking is authorized is public or private, and we review for clear error the factual findings on which the determination is based. Blanchard v. Dep't of Transp., 2002 ME 96, ¶ 26, 798 A.2d 1119, 1126. As a general rule, property is devoted to a public use only when the general public, or some portion of it (as opposed to particular individuals), in its organized capacity and upon occasion to do so, has a right to demand and share in the use. Id., 2002 ME 96, ¶ 29, 798 A.2d at 1126. To pass constitutional muster, the use for which the property is taken must at the time of the taking be a public use, not only in a theoretical aspect, but rather in actuality, practicality and effectiveness, under circumstances required by public exigency. Brown v. Warchalowski, 471 A.2d 1026, 1029-30 (Me.1984). The public must have the right to use the property without relying on the grace of any private party. Blanchard, 2002 ME 96, ¶ 29, 798 A.2d at 1126. [¶ 30] The Portland Company's track rights were taken so that they could be extinguished in furtherance of a single, integrated plan for the development of transportation infrastructure and economic development near the Ocean Gateway Marine Passenger Terminal. Significant portions of the planned development are for public access and use, including a public street, a parking garage, and other public space. Although the dominant purpose of a taking must be for a public use, a taking is not unconstitutional on the sole basis that a private party will also benefit from the taking. See Crommett v. City of Portland, 150 Me. 217, 236, 107 A.2d 841, 852 (1954). We have upheld a taking when use was not equal for all members of the public. Blanchard, 2002 ME 96, ¶ 33, 798 A.2d at 1127. The Portland Company's interest in all three parcels was taken for a public use, in spite of the benefit to Riverwalk.