Court Opinion

ID: 9569612
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:15:42.136872+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:03:37.255713
License: Public Domain

Stafford, J.
(concurring) — I agree with the majority. The Westlake Project is primarily a private undertaking, intended fundamentally for private use. As such the City may not, under article 1, section 16 of the Washington Constitution, acquire land for the project through eminent domain proceedings. That resolves the sole issue.
The balance of the majority's opinion embarks on a discussion of whether there is statutory authority to permit such action. I fear such discussion may foster an erroneous impression that the Legislature may have the power to *635authorize condemnation proceedings for private projects or to delegate such authority to municipalities. The state constitution expressly prohibits the taking of any property for a project which is primarily private in nature. Legislative pronouncements to the contrary are meaningless and the presence or absence thereof are unnecessary to a resolution of the case before us.
I also concur with the observation of the majority that the instant case is not in conflict with In re Port of Seattle, 80 Wn.2d 392, 495 P.2d 327 (1972). There, the Port's project fell within a specific constitutional provision declaring a public use for a public purpose. Article 8, section 8 (amendment 45) reads in relevant part:
The use of public funds by port districts in such manner as may be prescribed by the legislature for industrial development . . . shall be deemed a public use for a public purpose . . .
In the instant case no constitutional declaration of a public use for a public purpose exists. If it did and if it had the constitutionally authorized legislation we would have a different case. Unfortunately, the City of Seattle does not have the same constitutional support as the Port of Seattle.
Thus, I concur with the majority solely on the constitutional grounds it expresses.