Analyze Supreme case of County Wayne vs Hathcock - Essay Example

The only blight came with a small but significant percentage of landowners who refused to sell their lands voluntarily. For practicality reasons, this land could NOT be excluded from the noble project. This not only gave birth to the tussles between Wayne County and Hathock but also an interesting and applicable case to any urban planner and specifically a Michigan urban planner. Adopting a resolution of necessity and a declaration of taking the property (almost forcefully), Wayne County started condemnation procedures under the justification that thee land in question was to have more public benefits, in the long run, in its hands than in the aboriginal owners.

The owners, on the other hand, felt that if the county was awarded eminent domain, which it did, it would be a constitutional breach. It is crucial to note that the Michigan Supreme Court had in 1981 used the case of public domain in a case Poletown Neighborhood Council v Detroit present on the same economic reasons as Wayne County’s. Article 10, section 2 of the Michigan constitution states that “private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Property may only be taken if it is for a public purpose and if just compensation is provided.

” An interesting debate on what exactly can be termed as public use ensued, with the term generating different ideas. For the land to meet the public test threshold and condemned property acquired by a private investor, the court set up 3 criterions. Public necessity was evident, the property remained very much subject to public control after transfer and that the reason for choosing the land did nothing but serve the public good. The court however failed to decipher any of the above exceptions applicable to Pinnacle Project.

The Wayne v. Hathock opened other chapter to any planner’s mind: what if the land itself was the case of public