Quick quiz: a taking of private property for a public flood protection property is a "public use," right?
Yes, but that wasn't quite what the property owner had a problem with in a recent decision from the North Dakota Supreme Court, City of Fargo v. Wieland, No. 2019-153 (Dec. 12, 2019).
Rather, it was in the way the Resolution of Taking was worded. The owner asserted the wording was too vague, and allowed a "take now, decide what to do with the property later approach" that a California court had rejected in this case (and which a New Jersey court agreed with in this case). The ND court disagreed, concluding that the wording "flood protection project" and "real and meaningful flood protection" to be good enough to give the owner notice of what the condemnor was taking, and why. The court also affirmed that this issue was properly resolved by summary judgment, and didn't need a trial.
The owners also raised a necessity argument. We'll let you guess how they made out on that one.
City of Fargo v. Wieland, No. 20190153 (N.D. Dec. 12, 2019)
