According to the Supreme Court, the city’s proposed disposition of petitioners’ property qualifies as a “public use” within the meaning of the Takings Clause.
The court justified its ruling, among others, saying:
“(a) Though the city could not take petitioners’ land simply to confer a private benefit on a particular private party, see, e.g., Midkiff, 467 U.S., at 245, the takings at issue here would be executed pursuant to a carefully considered development plan, which was not adopted “to benefit a particular class of identifiable individuals,” ibid….
(b) The city’s determination that the area at issue was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to deference. The city has carefully formulated a development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and increased tax revenue….
(c) Petitioners’ proposal that the Court adopt a new bright-line rule that economic development does not qualify as a public use is supported by neither precedent nor logic. Promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted governmental function, and there is no principled way of distinguishing it from the other public purposes the Court has recognized. See, e.g., Berman, 348 U.S., at 24….”
In the case of the Norwood V. Burton, the issue was just compensation.
The trial court’s discretion in admitting expert testimony from a witness who was called to give an opinion on the value of the visibility component of the property