Court Opinion

ID: 9679777
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:06:33.698715+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:09:59.519992
License: Public Domain

LAMBERT, Justice,
concurring.
In my view, two facts are decisive to the outcome of this case. First, the Commonwealth made an unqualified determination that the five-acre parcel was “surplus,” and then it agreed to convey the parcel to a private party to settle other litigation. These facts remove any reasonable dispute as to the applicability of KRS 416.670 and the result achieved by the majority is mandated.
Despite my concurrence, I do not believe the majority intends an interpretation of the statute which will require the Commonwealth to re-convey every scrap or remnant of land it takes but does not actually use for a public purpose. The language of KRS 416.670 requires “development” but does not require actual use. Such terminology is consistent with broad executive discretion and should be so construed.
STEPHENS, C.J., and LEIBSON, J., join in this concurring opinion.