Also known as: public purposes · public use
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A governmental justification for the exercise of eminent domain, zoning power, spending authority, or contract regulation that consists of an action or project benefiting the community as a whole rather than a private individual. Courts equate the term with public use under the Takings Clause and require that rezoning amendments and contract impairments bear a substantial relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. The justification fails when the primary benefit flows to a particular landowner without a broader community purpose.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The city of New London condemned Susette Kelo's waterfront home as part of a comprehensive plan to transfer the parcel to private developers for a research campus and hotel complex. The owners challenged the taking on the ground that the ultimate private ownership served no public purpose. The court upheld the condemnation because the plan was rationally related to creating jobs and increasing tax revenue that would benefit the entire community.
Premier Manufacturing petitioned the city council to rezone a single industrial parcel to allow residential and retail uses. The council approved the change after public hearings, finding that the project would generate employment and improve traffic flow for surrounding neighborhoods. A neighboring owner sued, claiming the rezoning constituted invalid spot zoning without a public purpose. The court sustained the amendment because it advanced the comprehensive plan's goals of economic revitalization and general welfare.
During a severe economic downturn, the Minnesota legislature enacted a temporary moratorium on mortgage foreclosures to prevent widespread loss of family farms. A lender challenged the law as an unconstitutional impairment of its existing contracts. The Supreme Court upheld the statute because the emergency measure served an important public purpose of preserving the state's agricultural economy and was narrowly tailored to the crisis.
Platinum Partners obtained a rezoning that permitted a high-rise office tower on one lot surrounded by single-family homes, contrary to the comprehensive plan. Adjacent homeowners sued, arguing the change lacked any public purpose and merely conferred a windfall on one owner. The court invalidated the rezoning as arbitrary spot zoning because the primary benefit accrued to the developer rather than the surrounding community.
The city of East Cleveland enforced a zoning ordinance that limited occupancy of single-family homes to members of a nuclear family, preventing Inez Moore from living with her grandson. Moore challenged the ordinance as lacking any substantial relation to public health, safety, or general welfare. The Supreme Court struck down the restriction because it arbitrarily interfered with family living arrangements without advancing a legitimate public purpose.
New York City designated Grand Central Terminal a landmark, preventing Penn Central from constructing a fifty-story office tower above the station. The railroad argued that the restrictions served no public purpose and effected a taking. The Supreme Court upheld the designation because preserving historic structures for the benefit of the entire city constituted a legitimate public purpose that justified the regulation.
Courts treat public purpose and public use as interchangeable. The Supreme Court has held that a taking satisfies the public use requirement so long as it is rationally related to a legitimate public purpose, even when the property is transferred to private developers.
Supporting sources
Spot zoning fails when it singles out one parcel or small area for a use inconsistent with the surrounding zone and the change primarily benefits a particular landowner rather than the community. Rezoning must bear a substantial relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare to survive challenge.
…that TDR’s provide full compensation is irrelevant. “The legislature may determine what private property is needed for public purposes—that is a question of a political and legislative character; but when the taking has been ordered, then the question of compensation is judicial. It does not rest with the public, taking…
…restrictions on any state interference with private property—that property shall not be taken without due process nor for a public purpose
…they did not interfere with the Journal’s use of the information or did not publicize it and deprive the Journal of the first public use
…what of the larger issue of claiming immunity from obedience to a general civil regulation that has a reasonable relation to a public purpose
…the Court has made obligatory on the States the Fifth Amendment’s command that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation,[^maj-5] the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures,[^maj-6] and the Eighth’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.[^maj-7] On the…
Supporting sources
Yes. The Supreme Court has upheld takings that transfer property to private developers when the project is part of a comprehensive plan reasonably believed to create jobs, increase tax revenue, and promote economic revitalization for the community.
Supporting sources
A temporary impairment can be upheld if the legislation serves an important and legitimate public purpose and is a reasonable and narrowly tailored response to an emergency, such as preserving the agricultural economy during a depression.
Supporting sources
Municipal expenditures and acquisitions must serve a public purpose. Courts consider factors such as the number of residents benefited, the prospect of profit, and the need for the undertaking in light of economic conditions and private-sector alternatives.
Supporting sources