Court Opinion

ID: 9590090
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:51:29.360488+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:46.504443
License: Public Domain

TAYLOR, Justice
(dissenting).
In my opinion, no reasonable necessity is shown for the taking of so. much land.
KEETON, Justice
(dissenting).
The plaintiff school district now owns 88.36 acres of land acquired as a school site and seeks in This proceeding to acquire *50841.554 acres more contiguous to the land already acquired, intended ultimately to accommodate approximately 2500 students. Besides land necessary to construct school buildings, plaintiff desires land on which to construct a gymnasium to seat 5000 spectators; three or four football fields; ten to fifteen acres for a band drill area, four baseball fields, possibly a golf course, two soccer fields, eight basketball courts, twenty tennis courts, four volley ball courts; space is also desired for croquet, ten to twenty horseshoe pits, tag games, picnic grounds, skating areas; fifteen to twenty acres for parking purposes, space for nature study and other purposes.
In my opinion the acquiring of the additional acres of ground for the purposes contemplated is unnecessary and no reasonable necessity has been shown. The total land sought to be acquired would be spacious enough to accommodate some of the large universities of the United States. Statutes authorizing the taking of private land for public purposes, under prescribed conditions, never contemplated that a school district would be permitted to go into the real estate or parking business.
The fact, if it is a fact, that the land sought to be acquired is mostly unimproved farm land is of no> importance. The question is, does a public necessity exist? In my opinion the contention of plaintiff cannot be upheld.
The judgment should be reversed and the proceeding dismissed.