Court Stops Drainage Project
“The Court finds that there is no public necessity for the appropriation,” Park wrote in her 12-page ruling.
The drainage issue didn’t exist until the business park was created, and “...the public use is limited to the drainage of a street that will be used primarily by tenants of the industrial park or private entities that will build there,” Park wrote.
Irwin declined to comment on the judge’s ruling until she had a chance to review it with her attorney.
In the situation described above, but for the development of the business parks, there would be no issue of drainage. The question then is what happens when there is development?
The law truly diverges when there is a situation in which the end use is a public use, but it is only necessary because of a private desire. A few cases, such as Los Angeles v Rindgee, maintain when the benefit is only for one user, that the taking is not a public use. Other cases, such as Grosse Ile v Grosse Ile Bridge Company in Michigan maintain that when the end use is a public use, that, in and of itself, is enough to allow the taking to occur.
