Laserfiche WebLink
Thomas M. Sweeney <br />George E Borer <br />Patrick j. Sweeney <br />Robin D. Tourney <br />Joseph J. Murphy <br />Sweeney, Borer & Sweeney <br />Professional Association <br />Attorneys at Law <br />Blacktern Professional Building <br />3250 Rice Street <br />St. Paul, MN 55126 <br />July 19, 2006 <br />Telephone <br />(651) 222-2541 <br />Facsimile <br />(651) 223 -5289 <br />PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION PURSUANT TO <br />ATTORNEY - CLIENT RELATIONSHIP AND WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE <br />Mr. Joel R. Hanson <br />City Administrator <br />City of Little Canada <br />515 Little Canada Road <br />Little Canada, MN 55117 <br />Re: 2006 Eminent Domain Legislation <br />Our File No. 10971 <br />Dear Joel: <br />The 2006 Legislature passed Chapter 214, Laws of Minnesota 2006 (SF 2750), <br />which restricts the use of eminent domain in two different categories of acquisition: (1) <br />economic development taking and (2) traditional public use takings. <br />The legislation relating to economic development projects is a reaction to the <br />United States Supreme Court's decision of last year in Kelo v. City of New London, in <br />which the necessary "public purpose" for the use of eminent domain was broadly defined. <br />Subd. 2, §1 of Chapter 214 requires that eminent domain must be used only for a public <br />use or purpose. This is a restatement of current law. However, Chapter 214 defines <br />"public use" or "public purpose" as: <br />(1) the possession, occupation, ownership, and enjoyment of the land by the <br />general public, or by public agencies; <br />(2) the creation or functioning of a public service corporation; or, <br />(3) mitigation of a blighted area, remediation of an environmentally <br />contaminated area, reduction of abandoned property, or removal of a <br />public nuisance. <br />,1UL 2 0 2006 <br />5 <br />