## Facts

- Wayne County planned the “Pinnacle Project,” a 1,300-acre business and technology park near Detroit Metropolitan Airport, including commercial amenities such as a hotel and conference center.
- The County asserted the project would attract businesses, create approximately 30,000 jobs, and increase tax revenues.
- The County acquired most of the needed land through voluntary sales and sought to condemn the remaining parcels through eminent domain.
- The condemned properties were not alleged to be blighted, and the County intended to transfer the assembled land to private developers and occupants.
- Landowners challenged the condemnations as not for a “public use” under article 10, § 2 of the 1963 Michigan Constitution.
- The circuit court upheld the takings; the court of appeals affirmed by relying on *Poletown Neighborhood Council v. Detroit*, which had allowed takings justified by broad economic benefits.

## Issues

1. Whether condemning non-blighted private property for transfer to private parties as part of an economic-development project satisfies the “public use” requirement of article 10, § 2 of the Michigan Constitution.
2. Whether Michigan’s eminent-domain statute authorized the condemnations, and if so, whether that authorization was constitutionally sufficient.
3. Whether *Poletown*’s interpretation equating “public use” with generalized “public benefit” should be retained.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court held the condemnations were authorized by MCL 213.23 but unconstitutional under article 10, § 2 because they were not for “public use.”
- The Court overruled *Poletown Neighborhood Council v. Detroit*.
- The Court reversed the court of appeals and remanded for entry of summary disposition for the landowners.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Michigan Constitution, “public use” is a meaningful limit and is not satisfied merely because a taking may produce jobs, tax revenue, or other indirect economic benefits.
- A taking that transfers condemned property to a private entity is constitutional only within limited circumstances, including:
  - a public necessity of an extreme sort (traditionally involving indispensable infrastructure or instrumentalities of commerce);
  - continuing public oversight or control of the property’s use after transfer; or
  - selection of the specific property based on facts of independent public significance (such as addressing a property-based public harm), rather than the private interests of the transferee.
- Economic development alone, without fitting within these categories, does not constitute “public use” when the practical result is a forced transfer from one private owner to another.

## Conclusion

The court invalidated Wayne County’s attempted condemnations for a privately used business park, holding that projected economic benefits do not satisfy Michigan’s constitutional “public use” requirement, and it replaced *Poletown* with a narrower test limiting when property may be taken for transfer to private parties.


Cnty. of Wayne v. Hathcock, 471 Mich. 445, 684 N.W.2d 765 (Mich. 2004)