Court Opinion

ID: 9707452
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 02:11:55.206044+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:32.980291
License: Public Domain

Black, J.
(concurring). My considered view is that Division 2 was right in its determination of both points made by Judge Danhoe, for the panel (26 Mich App 659).
The Judge’s review of the two points starts on page 661 of his Court’s report. To me, it reasons with due judicial vigilance in keeping the ever indispensably leashed police power within constitutional bounds, and in concluding that the real issue before it and now here is one of ascertainment of the pertinent legislative purpose; referring to 1945 PA 344 (MCLA 125.71 et seq.; MSA 5.3501 et seq.) as that statute stood when Center Line instituted this low rent housing project.
Judge Danhoe’s opinion correctly construed the definition of “Real property,” found in section 2(e) of the act of 1945. That being true, I suggest respectfully that Center Line had no authority, under section 3 of the act of 1945 or otherwise, to take *267Michigan Bell’s property interests without paying just compensation therefor.
As I read the Court’s instant opinion it stands for affirmance of the judgment of the Court of Appeals. I therefore concur.