A shorter one today. In Catalina Foothills Unified School Dist. No. 16 v. La Paloma Prop. Owners Ass’n, Inc. No. 1 CA-CV 14-0838 (Nov. 24, 2015), the Arizona Court of Appeals held that a statutory grant of power to school districts to take property for “buildings and grounds” also implied the power to take property to access those buildings and grounds.
The School District acquired La Paloma’s vacant land in a stipulated eminent domain judgment, promising that the only access to the new campus from an adjacent private road also owned by La Paloma would be on foot. The road was used by residents of the La Paloma subdivision for vehicular access.
Well, you know how these things go when you make agreements with entities with the power of eminent domain, and sure enough, after the District built a new campus, it decided that it also needed vehicular access via that private road. So it condemned it, subject to La Paloma’s perpetual easement so the residents of the subdivision could continue to use it.
La Paloma objected, because the statute delegating eminent domain power to school districts limits the delegation to takings for “buildings and grounds,” and you know, a road isn’t “building and grounds.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-1111(3). The court of appeals disagreed. Yes, the court recognized that “a court will not inflate, expand, stretch or extend a statute to matters not falling within its expressed provisions,” but what the heck, this statute needed expanding and a bit of stretching. Slip op. at 4 (quoting City of Phoenix v. Donofrio, 407 P.2d 91 (Ariz. 1965)). The court held that the power to take buildings and grounds necessarily implied the power to take property to access those buildings and grounds. Slip op. at 5.
The court also rejected La Paloma’s argument that “buildings and grounds” does not include existing roads, and held that it doesn’t matter what the property was being used for before the taking, only after. This was really an argument that the District can’t take property to get access into or on school grounds, and it would be ridiculous if a school district could take vacant land, but was prohibited from using a part of that land to create a road, a point conceded by La Paloma. Slip op. at 5.
And what about that other part of the statute which grants the power to take property for use as roads, but only grants that power to a “county, city, town or village,” but excludes school districts? Well, “to be sure,” that provision wouldn’t allow the District to condemn land that is not connected to District property. But that’s different than property that is connected to District property. It can take those roads.
The court also disposed of other issues in the case: severance damages, voter approval of the taking, and prejudgment interest.