Opinion ID: 1206965
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The necessity for the Condemnation.

Text: In the law of eminent domain, it is well established that there must be a necessity for the taking, but this does not mean an absolute necessity, but rather a reasonable necessity. Seabrook v. Carolina Power & Light Co. , 159 S.C. 1, 156 S.E. 1. Our Supreme Court said in White v. Johnson , 148 S.C. 488, 146 S.E. 411, 412: It is well established law that necessity, as well as public use, must always exist in order to warrant the taking of lands, through condemnation, by a grantee of the power of eminent domain. The delegation of the right to exercise that power carries with it the implied condition that it shall be exercised only to the extent found necessary. As to what is meant, in this connection, by the term `necessity', we find the following in 80 C.J., at page 630: `Necessity    does not mean an absolute but only a reasonable necessity, such as would combine the greatest benefit to the public with the least inconvenience and expense to the condemning party and the property owner consistent with each benefit   '. This block will be used as a site for a historical exhibit during 1970 and thereafter as a public park or garden and historic site. The block is the site of the Hampton-Preston house, an antebellum mansion in which the Hampton and Preston families lived prior to and during the Civil War. The house is being restored, and the gardens which were laid out over the entire block are to be replanted after the Tricentennial celebration. The validity of condemnation for parks, public squares, historical sites or monuments has been established in many instances. The landowner complains that her properties are to be used for parking purposes, but that, too, is a recognized use for which lands can be condemned. Condemnations for ornamental or beautification purposes are recognized as necessary uses in several jurisdictions. This use is clearly appropriate and fitting for the purposes for which the land is being condemned, and that is the test on the issue of necessity. This determination has been made by the Commission, and, unless the landowner can show that acquisition of this land is not reasonably necessary and is an abuse of discretion, the Court will not interfere. The record before me establishes that the acquisition of this parcel (as well as all other parcels in this block), is reasonably necessary and in the interest of the public. This taking is therefore necessary within the meaning of the law of eminent domain, and there is no basis for enjoining the condemnation on this ground.