dissenting.
I concur in the views expressed in Mr. Justice Carrico’s opinion and, adding a footnote, I dissent from the views of the majority.
The majority decision appears to rest primarily upon the conclusion that “matters of economics, sociology and public policy . . . belong exclusively in the legislative domain” and that this Court may not “second-guess the law-makers”. We have held that, although presumed to be right, “a declaration by the General Assembly . . . that a contemplated use is a public one, is not conclusive and is subject to judicial review”. Inlet Authority v. Bastian, 206 Va. 906, 909, 147 S.E.2d 131, 134 (1966). The legislative power to declare public policy is subject, of course, to the constraints of the Constitution. Whether the goal of a legislative act is a public purpose and whether the act is reasonably designed to achieve that purpose are constitutional questions. As a matter of final determination, constitutional questions belong exclusively in the judicial domain.
We have resolved these questions in favor of housing assistance programs for lower-income families. Mumpower v. Housing Authority, 176 Va. 426, 11 S.E.2d 732 (1940); Fairfax County v. DeGroff, 214 Va. 235, 198 S.E.2d 600 (1973). But the program inaugurated by the 1979 amendments to the Virginia Housing Development Authority Act cannot fairly be characterized as a lower-income housing program. Rather, it is a program which empowers the Authority to expend public funds to grant a few affluent families in one Virginia city a housing subsidy at the expense of taxpayers in every tax bracket in every quarter of the State. Under Article X, § 8, of our Constitution, public funds must be used for public purposes; they cannot be spent to provide private benefits for a select few.
*679It is true that a private benefit will not invalidate a public purpose when the former is merely incidental to the latter. Hunter v. Redevelopment Authority, 195 Va. 326, 78 S.E.2d 893 (1953). But is the private benefit conferred by this statute merely incidental to the public purpose underlying the lower-income housing program? In an “economically mixed project”, 80% of the benefit may be private; in a “housing rehabilitation district”, the private benefit may be total. If this upper-income housing program is merely incidental to the lower-income housing program, then this is a case of the tail wagging the dog. In the shadow of the majority opinion, nothing with the slightest nexus to a program which serves a constitutionally permissible public purpose will be constitutionally impermissible.
For yet another reason, subordinate but sufficient unto itself, the order validating the bonds should be reversed. The statute provides that “the Governor shall submit... a budget including the sum . . . required to” finance any deficit which may occur in the fund established to pay the principal and interest on the bonds. In his letter opinion, the trial judge expressed the view that this provision “is unconstitutional and invalid” under Article III, § 1, and Article V, § 5, of the Virginia Constitution which, he said, “vests in the Governor the sole discretion to determine what legislative recommendations he makes to the General Assembly in the budget.” * He ruled, however, that this provision is severable and that “elimination of this provision does not defeat the purpose of the Act.” Incorporating his letter opinion in the final order, he declared that “the means provided for the payment of the Bonds are valid” and that “the Bonds are valid”.
But the provision severed by the trial judge is, itself, part and parcel of one of the crucial “means provided for payment”. Indeed, the statute provides no other means of financing a deficit. Absent such means, the statute fails to guarantee full payment. Hence, the trial judge erred in validating the statute as severed. Ignoring that error, the majority affirm the validation order but, implicitly, reverse the very ruling upon which it was based. In effect, the majority has affirmed in part, reversed in part, and modified the order entered below. Since the majority does not affirm in full, the validation order *680is not “binding and conclusive” within the meaning of Code § 15.1-220.
CARRICO, J., joins in dissent.
This view finds support in the decisions of courts in other states applying comparable constitutional provisions to similar statutes. State v. Waterhouse, 212 S.E.2d 724, 732 (W. Va. 1974); Warren v. Nusbaum, 59 Wis.2d 391, 450, 208 N.W.2d 780, 813 (1973).