PL PACKET 03212006 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• CHAPTER 15 - —1 In re Minneapolis Cmty.Det. property may be condemned for use by a private interest, including a retail Agency,582 N.W.2d 596(Minn. store,parking, and an office complex. The court will apply the same degree Ct.App 1998). of scrutiny over this type of condemnation that it applies to taking property for a purely public use. The court will look for some evidence in the record that the taking serves a public purpose. Housing&Redevelopntent Auth. Even though a public entity,using its eminent domain powers,turns over ex rel.City of Richfield v. parcels to a private entity for use by that private entity,the condemnation Walser Auto Sales,Inc.,630 N.W.2d 662(Minn.Ct.App. Will, nevertheless,be constitutional if a public purpose is furthered by such a 2001),ajfd,641 N.W.2d 885 transfer of land. If it appears that the record contains some evidence that the (Minn.2002). taking serves a public purpose,however informal,there is nothing left for the courts to pass upon. Absolute necessity is not required for a finding of "public purpose"for a condemnation; rather, it is enough to find that the proposed taking is reasonably necessary or convenient for the furtherance of a proper purpose. Housing&Redevelopment Auth. An appeal of a public purpose challenge to a taking does not become moot ex ret.City gfRichfield v. merely by virtue of title in the property transferring to the party exercising the Walser Auto Sales,Inc.,641 N.W.2d 885(Minn.2002). taking. A public purpose challenge to a taking is not moot even where there have been subsequent changes to the property taken,where effective relief— either through return of a portion or all of the property taken or some other • appropriate remedy—remains possible. 1 Anderson v.Cth,of Cokato,631 A city may change the use for which acquired land had been acquired after N W.2d]2l(Minn Ct.App. title has been transferred in a condemnation proceeding. This does not 2001). amount to a discontinuance of the condemnation. Minn Stat.§ 1 P.195,subd.2. Piche v.Independent Sch Dist Once title is acquired, even under threat of condemnation, the original fee No.611,634 N.W.2d 193 owner does not retain any reversionary interests even if the public purpose (Minn.Ct.App.2001). for the property was abandoned. Minn.stat.§ ]]7.055. The eminent domain procedure is initiated by a petition,which must describe the land to be taken and identify the landowners. The petition is presented to the district court of the county where the land is situated, asking that the commissioners appraise the damages that may be caused if the land is taken. At least 20 days prior to the presentation of the petition, a notice of the petition and the time and place of its presentation must be served upon the landowners named in the petition. If certain landowners cannot be found, the petitioner may file an affidavit to that effect and fulfill the notice requirement by publishing the required information in the official newspaper for three consecutive weeks. Landowners who are not served are not bound. A right-of-way map or plat must be served upon a landowner along with the written demand. The petitioner has 10 days following receipt of the written demand to furnish the map. •` 1 HANDBOOK FOR MWNESOTA CITIES 15133 This chapter last revised 12/15/2004