The Colorado Supreme Court has agreed to review a public use case we’ve been following with keen interest, Carousel Farms Metropolitan District, No. 18SC30 (July 2, 2018), one we noted was the “most interesting” such case of 2017.
The Court of Appeals held that the actual purpose of the taking was private, so it didn’t matter that the public was actually going to use the property being taken. In short:
When the primary purpose of a condemnation is to advance private interests, even if there will be an eventual public benefit, the condemnation is not for a public purpose
Slip op. at 18. Read our summary of the case here for more details.
The condemnor sought discretionary review, and the Supreme Court agreed to consider these issues:
[REFRAMED] Whether the court of appeals should review for clear error a trial court’s determination that a condemning authority sufficiently demonstrated that a taking is for a public use.
[REFRAMED] Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding a metropolitan district failed to prove condemnation of a parcel was for a public use and necessary, where the subdivision that would principally benefit from the condemnation did not exist at the time of the taking and development of the subdivision was conditioned on the district’s acquisition of the parcel.
[REFRAMED] Whether the court of appeals erred in concluding that a metropolitan district’s condemnation of a parcel violated section 38-1-101(1)(b), C.R.S. (2017), when the condemned parcel would be dedicated to the public and would not be transferred to a private entity.
Stay tuned. If further briefs are filed, we’ll post them. In the meantime, here are the cert-stage briefs.