COUNTY OF WAYNE V. HATHCOCK
684 N.W.2d 765 (2004)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Hathcock (D) appealed a decision from the Court of Appeals which
affirmed the trial court's judgment upholding County's (P) determination of necessity in an
eminent domain case.
FACTS: P initiated actions to condemn nineteen parcels of land immediately south of
Metropolitan Airport. The owners of those parcels, Ds, maintain that these condemnations
lack statutory authorization and exceed constitutional bounds. P's recent renovations of
Metropolitan Airport produced a new terminal and jet runway. This also raised concerns that
noise from increased air traffic would plague neighboring landowners. P, funded by a partial
grant of $21 million from the FAA, began a program of purchasing neighboring properties
through voluntary sales. P purchased approximately five hundred acres in nonadjacent plots
scattered in a checkerboard pattern throughout an area south of Metropolitan Airport. P's
agreement with the FAA provided that any properties acquired through the noise abatement
program were to be put to economically productive use. P developed the idea of constructing
a large business and technology park with a conference center, hotel accommodations, and a
recreational facility. The 'Pinnacle Project' was born. The Pinnacle Project is a
state-of-the-art business and technology park in a 1,300-acre area adjacent to Metropolitan
Airport. P claims it will create thousands of jobs, and tens of millions of dollars in tax
revenue, and broaden P's tax base. According to expert testimony it is anticipated that the
Pinnacle Project will create thirty thousand jobs and add $350 million in tax revenue for
the county. P planned to construct the business and technology park in a 1,300-acre area
that included the five hundred acres purchased under the federally funded noise abatement
program. P began anew to solicit voluntary sales from area landowners. This round of sales
negotiations enabled the county to purchase an additional five hundred acres within the
project area. As for the remaining 46 parcels representing 300 acres established in a
checkerboard pattern within the 1,300-acre parcel, P then adopted a Resolution of Necessity
and Declaration of Taking (Resolution of Necessity) authorizing the acquisition of the
remaining three hundred acres needed for the Pinnacle Project. The properties were appraised
and P issued written offers based on these appraisals to the property owners. Twenty-seven
more property owners accepted these offers and sold their parcels to the county. Nineteen
additional parcels were still needed for the Pinnacle Project. These properties, owned by
Ds, are the subject of the present condemnation actions. P initiated condemnation actions.
Each D filed a motion to review the necessity of the proposed condemnations. Ds argued,
first, that the county lacked statutory authority to exercise the power of eminent domain in
this manner. Second, that acquisition of the subject properties was not necessary as
required by statute. Finally, they challenged the constitutionality of these condemnation
actions, maintaining that the Pinnacle Project would not serve a public purpose. The trial
court affirmed P's determination of necessity. Ds appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed
the trial court's decision. This appeal resulted.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment