## Facts

- Southwestern Illinois Development Authority (SWIDA) is a statutorily created local governmental entity authorized to promote development in Madison and St. Clair Counties.
- Gateway International Motorsports Corporation (Gateway) operated a successful racetrack and sought additional parking after expanding seating.
- National City Environmental, L.L.C. and related entities (NCE) owned a 148.5-acre tract adjacent to Gateway’s property, used for clay/dirt sourcing and planned landfill expansion for its recycling business.
- Gateway attempted to purchase the tract; NCE refused because it intended to keep the land for business expansion.
- At Gateway’s request, SWIDA initiated condemnation to acquire NCE’s tract for a parking lot serving the racetrack; Gateway prepared the quick-take application materials and agreed to fund SWIDA’s fees, litigation costs, and the eventual acquisition price.
- The county board authorized SWIDA to exercise eminent domain, citing economic development, jobs, and tax revenues as public benefits.
- SWIDA offered NCE $1 million; after rejection, SWIDA filed a condemnation action and sought “quick-take” transfer of title and possession before final compensation.
- SWIDA conducted no independent traffic/safety study and did not connect the taking to a broader public development plan; Gateway had alternatives for parking on its own property (e.g., structured parking).

## Issues

1. Whether condemning NCE’s land for transfer to Gateway for racetrack parking satisfied the constitutional requirement that eminent domain be exercised for a “public use” or “public purpose.”

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court (on rehearing) affirmed the appellate court and held the condemnation invalid.
- The court concluded the taking was primarily for Gateway’s private benefit and did not constitute a genuine public use.
- The quick-take approval was rejected because the underlying condemnation failed the public-use requirement.

## Legal Principles

- “Public use” is construed broadly, but it does not permit eminent domain exercised chiefly to benefit a particular private party.
- Courts give weight to legislative or administrative findings of public purpose, but judicial review must test whether the asserted public purpose is genuine rather than pretextual.
- General claims of economic development (jobs, increased tax revenues) are not, by themselves, sufficient to justify taking property from one private owner to transfer it to another where the record shows a predominantly private objective.
- Lack of independent planning or objective study, combined with heavy private-party initiation and financing of the taking, supports a finding that the asserted public purpose is not the real purpose.

## Conclusion

The court held that SWIDA’s condemnation of NCE’s tract for transfer to a private racetrack operator as a parking lot violated the public-use limitation because the project primarily served a private beneficiary and was not supported by an independently demonstrated public program or necessity beyond generalized economic benefits.


Sw. Ill. Dev. Auth. v. Nat’l City Env’t, L.L.C., 199 Ill. 2d 225, 768 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. 2002)