No. 12333
I N THE SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O M N A A
OR F F OTN
1973
CITY OF HELENA, MONTANA,
a municipal c o r p o r a t i o n ,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
ANNA MAE DeWOLF, e t a l . ,
Defendants and A p p e l l a n t s .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable P e t e r G. Meloy, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record:
For A p p e l l a n t s :
Gough, Booth, Shanahan and Johnson, Helena, Montana
Ronald F. Waterman argued, Helena, Montana
Edward Booth appeared, Helena, Montana
For Respondent :
K e l l e r , Reynolds and Drake, Helena, Montana
Keith K e l l e r argued, Helena, Montana
C. W. Leaphart argued, Helena, Montana
Submitted: March 5, 1973
Decided :#AR 2 7 1973
Filed: MRR 2 7 i973
Mr, J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.
T h i s i s an a p p e a l from a p r e l i m i n a r y o r d e r of condemna-
tion. P l a i n t i f f c i t y of Helena brought t h i s a c t i o n seeking t o
condemn and t a k e by eminent domain defendants ' p r o p e r t y l o c a t e d
i n t h e c i t y of Helena. The t r i a l c o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g on neces-
s i t y and e n t e r e d i t s p r e l i m i n a r y o r d e r of condemnation. After
e x c e p t i o n s were o v e r r u l e d , defendants appealed.
Defendants a r e owners of p r o p e r t y c o n s i s t i n g of some f o u r
l o t s o r about 9,000 square f e e t , on which t h e Union Market o p e r a t e s
and f i v e s t o r e s a r e r e n t e d , The p r o p e r t y f r o n t s on S i x t h Avenue.
To t h e west and extending south l i e s Jackson S t r e e t , t o t h e n o r t h
and extending n o r t h i s A l l e n S t r e e t . The e a s t and s o u t h s i d e s
a r e parking l o t s , and a c r o s s Jackson S t r e e t t o t h e west i s a b u i l d -
i n g housing t h e S t a t e Nursery Company.
I n 1967 t h e downtown a r e a of t h e c i t y of Helena was s u r -
veyed f o r a proposed Urban Renewal p r o j e c t pursuant t o 42 U,S,C.A.
$ 5 1450 e t . s e q . T h e r e a f t e r t h e planning p r o c e s s of t h e p r o j e c t
began, That s t a g e l a s t e d e i g h t e e n months and on A p r i l 30, 1970,
t h e plan f o r t h e Urban Renewal a r e a was submitted t o t h e f e d e r a l
government and approved. Funding was r e c e i v e d i n J u l y 1970. By
March 1972, approximately 90% of t h e land w i t h i n t h e Urban Renewal
a r e a had been a c q u i r e d and 45% of t h e b u i l d i n g s a c q u i r e d had been
demolished.
Defendants' p r o p e r t y i s w i t h i n t h e c o n f i n e s o f t h e Urban
Renewal a r e a a t i t s northernmost boundary. The c i t y attempted
t o n e g o t i a t e a purchase of d e f e n d a n t s ' p r o p e r t y w i t h o u t s u c c e s s .
I t then a u t h o r i z e d condemnation proceedings.
The proposed development plan shows d e f e n d a n t s ' p r o p e r t y
i s t o be c r o s s e d a t t h e n o r t h e a s t c o r n e r by t h e "new" Jackson
Street. The remainder of t h e p r o p e r t y i s t o be used f o r s u r f a c e
parking, y i e l d i n g about t h i r t y parking s t a l l s .
Simply s t a t e d , t h e purpose of t h e L a s t Chance Urban Renewal
p l a n i s t o r e v i t a l i z e t h e whole downtown a r e a of t h e c i t y of
Helena to make it attractive for commercial redevelopment. The
development and proposed new construction is a relatively large
project and involves downtown Helena from Sixth Avenue south
up historic "Last Chance ~ulch". At the date of the hearing
in the district court the project had expended some $5,000,000 out
of $9,300,000 provided, These monies have been expended and will
be expended for acquisition of properties and public improvements,
such as streets, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and storm sewers.
Other projects include elderly housing and a neighborhood facility
building. So far, one new hotel has been constructed with private
funds, The Urban Renewal agency does not itself rebuild structures.
It has no funds available for rehabilitation except in certain
limited classes of historic restoration and for planning grants.
The Urban Renewal agency's function is to make an area attractive
far private development. It performs this by consolidating land
ownership, installing public improvements such as streets, sewers
and curbs, and demolishing existing structures on an area basis.
The basic concept of the plan is a "shopping center" in
which vehicles are separated from pedestrians. The business area
would be surrounded by public streets with parking adjacent to
them. The commercial area itself is located between the surround-
ing streets and parking areas. The shopping center analogy is
descriptive in a sense. However, its development is somewhat
reverse; that is, parking and streets come before business in the
plan. Business, dependent entirely on private enterprise, may
or may not come at all. In the overall plan the area is not being
all taken nor all cleared. The properties taken are on a selective
basis, the witnesses giving reasons for the taking. Some of the
property was being preserved for architectural and historical
significance. Some properties were shown as to rehabilitation
projects. Some dilapidated properties were being kept for his-
torical purposes. In other words, within the area, considerable
picking and choosing was made for properties to be acquired.
~ e f e n d a n t s ' p r o p e r t y was i n s p e c t e d and found t o be l a c k i n g
i n meeting what were c a l l e d "code s t a n d a r d s " i n some r e s p e c t s ;
b u t t h e r e c o r d i s c l e a r , and t h e t r i a l c o u r t found, t h a t t h e neces-
s a r y improvements could and would b e made except f o r t h i s l i t i g a -
tion. Accordingly, we a r e n o t h e r e concerned so f a r a s d e f e n d a n t s '
p r o p e r t y goes w i t h substandard o r "blighted" property. W are,
e
however, concerned w i t h a b l i g h t e d a r e a .
Defendants s t a t e two i s s u e s on appeal. (1) Whether t h e
d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n r u l i n g t h a t t h e condemnor had e s t a b l i s h e d
II
n e c e s s i t y " f o r t h e t a k e , and (2) whether t h e c o u r t e r r e d i n
r u l i n g t h a t defendants f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h a r b i t r a r y and c a p r i -
c i o u s a c t i o n and abuse of d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e c i t y ' s a t t e m p t t o
take the property,
W approach o u r d i s c u s s i o n by conceding, a s b o t h p a r t i e s
e
do, t h a t Urban Renewal and t h e proposed s t r e e t and parking i m -
provements contemplated on defendants ' land a r e f o r p u b l i c u s e . .
Our a t t e n t i o n i s narrowed t o whether t h e t a k i n g of t h e land i s
n e c e s s a r y , and i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h a t , whether t h e proposed
t a k i n g i s done w i t h t h e l e a s t p r i v a t e i n j u r y ,
The t r i a l c o u r t found s p e c i f i c a l l y t h a t "the p u b l i c i m -
provements and u s e t o be made by P l a i n t i f f [ c i t y ] a c r o s s and
through Defendants' s a i d land a r e l o c a t e d i n t h e manner which
a r e most compatible w i t h t h e g r e a t e s t p u b l i c good and t h e l e a s t
p r i v a t e injury".
S e c t i o n 11-3902, R.C.M. 1947, e x p r e s s e s t h e l e g i s l a t i v e
concern w i t h t h e e x i s t e n c e o f d e t e r i o r a t e d a r e a s i n c i t i e s . It
provides :
"It i s hereby found and d e c l a r e d t h a t b l i g h t e d
a r e a s which c o n s t i t u t e a s e r i o u s and growing
menace, i n j u r i o u s t o t h e p u b l i c h e a l t h , s a f e t y ,
morals and w e l f a r e of t h e r e s i d e n t s of t h e s t a t e
e x i s t i n m u n i c i p a l i t i e s of t h e s t a t e ; t h a t t h e
e x i s t e n c e of such a r e a s c o n t r i b u t e s s u b s t a n t i a l l y
and i n c r e a s i n g l y t o t h e spread of d i s e a s e and
crime and d e p r e c i a t i o n of p r o p e r t y v a l u e s , con-
s t i t u t e s an economic and s o c i a l l i a b i l i t y , sub-
s t a n t i a l l y i m p a i r s o r a r r e s t s t h e sound growth
of m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , r e t a r d s t h e p r o v i s i o n s of
housing accommodations, a g g r a v a t e s t r a f f i c problems
and s u b s t a n t i a l l y impairs o r a r r e s t s t h e elimina-
t i o n of t r a f f i c h a z a r d s and t h e improvement of
t r a f f i c f a c i l i t i e s ; and t h a t t h e prevention and
e l i m i n a t i o n of such a r e a s i s a m a t t e r of s t a t e
p o l i c y and s t a t e concern i n o r d e r t h a t t h e s t a t e
and i t s m u n i c i p a l i t i e s s h a l l n o t c o n t i n u e t o be
endangered by a r e a s which a r e f o c a l c e n t e r s o f
d i s e a s e , promote j u v e n i l e delinquency, a r e con-
ducive t o f i r e s , a r e d i f f i c u l t t o p o l i c e and t o
provide p o l i c e p r o t e c t i o n f o r , and, w h i l e con-
t r i b u t i n g l i t t l e t o t h e t a x income of t h e s t a t e
and i t s m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , consume an e x c e s s i v e
p r o p o r t i o n of i t s revenues because of t h e e x t r a
services required f o r police, f i r e , accident,
h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n and o t h e r forms of p u b l i c pro-
t e c t i o n , s e r v i c e s and f a c i l i t i e s .
"It i s f u r t h e r found and d e c l a r e d t h a t c e r t a i n
of such a r e a s , o r p o r t i o n s thereof,may r e q u i r e
a c q u i s i t i o n , c l e a r a n c e , and d i s p o s i t i o n s u b j e c t
t o u s e r e s t r i c t i o n s , a s provided i n t h i s a c t ,
s i n c e t h e p r e v a i l i n g c o n d i t i o n of decay may make
i m p r a c t i c a b l e t h e r e c l a m a t i o n of t h e a r e a by
r e h a b i l i t a t i o n ; t h a t other areas o r portions
t h e r e o f may, through t h e m e a n s p r o v i d e d i n t h i s
a c t , be s u s c e p t i b l e of r e h a b i l i t a t i o n i n such a
manner t h a t t h e c o n d i t i o n s and e v i l s hereinabove
enumerated may be e l i m i n a t e d , remedied o r pre-
vented: and t h a t t o t h e e x t e n t f e a s i b l e s a l v a b l e
m h t e d a r e a s should be r e h a b i l i t a t e d through
v o l u n t a r y a c t i o n and t h e r e g u l a t o r y p r o c e s s ,
"It i s f u r t h e r found and d e c l a r e d t h a t t h e powers
c o n f e r r e d by t h i s a c t a r e f o r p u b l i c u s e s and
purposes f o r which p u b l i c money may be expended
and t h e power of eminent domain e x e r c i s e d ; and t h a t
t h e n e c e s s i t y i n t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t f o r t h e pro-
v i s i o n s h e r e i n e n a c t e d i s hereby d e c l a r e d a s a
m a t t e r of l e g i s l a t i v e d e t e r m i n a t i o n , " (Emphasis
added).
S e c t i o n 11-3908, R.C.M. 1947, g i v e s m u n i c i p a l i t i e s t h e
r i g h t of eminent domain f o r Urban Renewal purposes. I t provides
i n part:
"A m u n i c i p a l i t y s h a l l have t h e r i g h t t o a c q u i r e
by condemnation, any i n t e r e s t i n r e a l p r o p e r t y ,
which i t may deem n e c e s s a r y f o r an urban renewal
p r o j e c t under t h i s a c t a f t e r t h e adoption by t h e
l o c a l governing body of a r e s o l u t i o n d e c l a r i n g
t h a t t h e a c q u i s i t i o n of t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y d e s c r i b e d
t h e r e i n i s n e c e s s a r y f o r such purpose. Condemna-
t i o n f o r urban renewal of b l i g h t e d a r e a s i s d e c l a r e d
t o b e a p u b l i c u s e , and p r o p e r t y a l r e a d y devoted
t o any o t h e r p u b l i c u s e o r a c q u i r e d by t h e owner
o r h i s predecessor i n i n t e r e s t by eminent domain
may be condemned f o r t h e purposes of t h i s a c t . "
A t t h i s p o i n t , we s h a l l d i g r e s s somewhat. The power of
eminent domain expressed above i n s e c t i o n 11-3908, R,.C.M. 1947,
r e f e r s s p e c i f i c a l l y t o t h i s urban renewal p r o j e c t . Yet, t h e
c i t y , i n i t s b r i e f , s u g g e s t s and urges t h a t s e c t i o n 11-977,
R.C.M, 1947, t h e power of condemnation s t a t u t e l a s t amended i n
1937 and a p p l y i n g g e n e r a l l y t o c i t y and town c o u n c i l s , provides
f o r a 'lconclusive presumption a s t o t h e n e c e s s i t y of taking".
The c i t y reasons t h a t once i t p a s s e s i t s ordinance d e c l a r i n g
condemnation f o r urban renewal of b l i g h t e d a r e a s , t h e p u b l i c
use and t h e n e c e s s i t y a r e c o n c l u s i v e l y presumed; n o t under s e c t i o n
11-3908, b u t r a t h e r under s e c t i o n 11-977. The answer i s r e l a -
t i v e l y simple.
1I
The c i t y ' s only a u t h o r i t y t o condemn on a n area" b a s i s
i s s e c t i o n 11-3908, R.C.M. 1947. It could n o t otherwise condemn
f o r parking l o t purposes under s e c t i o n 11-977, R.C.M, 1947.
I n s e c t i o n 11-3908 i t i s f u r t h e r provided t h a t c e r t a i n t y p e s
o f evidence a r e a d m i s s i b l e d u r i n g a condemnation h e a r i n g , Had
t h e l e g i s l a t u r e intended t h e urban r e n e w a l ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n of
n e c e s s i t y t o be f i n a l , i t would have been unnecessary t o t h e r e -
a f t e r d e c l a r e what evidence wou1.d b e a d m i s s i b l e a t a h e a r i n g on
necessity. It a l s o contemplated t h a t eminent domain wou1.d b e
e x e r c i s e d under t h e eminent domain s t a t u t e s , s e c t i o n s 93-9901,
e t seq., R.C,M. 1947, Under s e c t i o n 93-9905, t h e l e a s t p r i v a t e
i n j u r y must be c o n s i d e r e d , a t l e a s t i n t h e c o n t e x t of t h e Urban
Renewal plan.
The Urban Renewal s e c t i o n s h e r e t o f o r e quoted provide n o t
only f o r c l e a r a n c e of b l i g h t e d p r o p e r t y b u t go on t o f a v o r r e -
h a b i l i t a t i o n of a r e a s o r p o r t i o n s t h e r e o f . Further, those sec-
t i o n s i n d i c a t e t h a t redevelopment i s proper only when reclama-
t i o n of an a r e a by r e h a b i l i t a t i o n i s impractical,
Thus, t h e c i t y ' s c o n t e n t i o n of a c o n c l u s i v e presumption
i s n o t sound.
Returning now t o our d i s c u s s i o n of t h e r e c o r d a s i t per-
t a i n s t o t h e f i n d i n g of n e c e s s i t y and l e a s t p r i v a t e i n j u r y . Both
s i d e s concede t h e g e n e r a l u s e f o r Urban Renewal purposes i s e s -
t a b l i s h e d , b u t t h e n e c e s s i t y of t h e p a r t i c u l a r u s e , t h a t of
parking, i s challenged.
The testimony concerning the need for parking was supplied
by an engineer who had made a study and projected his study'into
the future, - the planned development does occur. His testimony
if
established that - -
unless all of the buildings were built and
completely occupied, the need for the 31 parking spaces which
defendants' property would yield would not exist. It is also
clear from the testimony that no one can say whether redevelop-
ment will occur. No public funding is available for redevelop-
ment .
The city argues that even though many of the public im-
provements contemplated and under construction are not necessary
if no redevelopment occurs; conversely, it is certain that no
redevelopment can occur unless those public improvements are made.
That is to say, that necessarily the plan's consummation is a
long term proposition.
Defendants stress these matters: First, "no one" can
testify as to the extent of redevelopment. Second, the particular
parking area or structure planned for the area to be condemned
is not presently funded; that is, it is only a plan for the future,
Third, if redevelopment does not occur, may of the public im-
provements will not be needed. In this connection, defendants
pessimistically forecast a dismal future for downtown Helena.
In their brief, they refer to it as a "planner's dream expressed
in architectural drawings".
However, the city urges that the broad scope of the legis-
lation partially quoted heretofore, and the entire urban renewal
concept necessarily envisions positive, imaginative, and optimis-
tic planning for the future.
This Court has determined necessity questions in a number
of cases, mostly related to highway condemnations, In only one
case has the Court specifically directed its attention to the
necessity of use as distinguished from the general purpose, In
State Highway Comm'n v. Yost Farm Co,, 142 Mont. 239, 384 P,2d
277, the highway commission proposed to build a frontage road
a l o n g a n i n t e r s t a t e highway. A t t h e n e c e s s i t y h e a r i n g t h e com-
mission introduced i t s r e s o l u t i o n a u t h o r i z i n g condemnation and
rested i t s case, The p r o p e r t y owner introduced evidence of ex-
p e r t s who t e s t i f i e d t h e f r o n t a g e road was unnecessary and t h a t t h e
a r e a was adequately served by o t h e r roadways, O t h e b a s i s of
n
t h i s evidence and l a c k of any evidence i n favor of c o n s t r u c t i o n
of t h e r o a d , t h e Court denied n e c e s s i t y .
I n the i n s t a n t case, the c i t y did not r e s t i t s case solely
on t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of i t s r e s o l u t i o n a u t h o r i z i n g condemnation.
I n s t e a d i t i n t r o d u c e d c o n s i d e r a b l e evidence, both o r a l and
documentary, i n support of i t s Urban Renewal plan and t h e s p e c i f i c
u s e s t o be made of d e f e n d a n t s ' p r o p e r t y . M r . Greer, t h e former
Urban Renewal d i r e c t o r , t e s t i f i e d a s t o t h e g e n e r a l purposes and
o u t l i n e of t h e p l a n and t h e uses t o be made of d e f e n d a n t s ' p r o p e r t y .
That t h e a r e a encompassed i n t h e p r o j e c t was a " b l i g h t e d area";
some 89% of t h e b u i l d i n g s were " d e f i c i e n t " ; w h i l e 39% were found
t o be "sub-standard", M r . Dailey, an e x p e r t t r a f f i c e n g i n e e r ,
t e s t i f i e d a s t o t r a f f i c and parking and h i s reasons t h e r e f o r .
M r , ~ a i l e y ' stestimony a s t o parking requirements was,
o t h e r than t h e maps, t h e only evidence a s t o parking requirements,
A f t e r d i s c u s s i n g s h o r t - t e r m and long-term parking requirements
i n terms of l e s s than 2 1 / 2 hours and more than 2 1 / 2 h o u r s ,
h e a l s o e s t a b l i s h e d a d i s t a n c e of some 250 f e e t a p a r k e r would
t r a v e l from s h o r t term parking. H e d i s c u s s e d t h e parking needs
i n t h e a r e a of d e f e n d a n t s f p r o p e r t y i n terms of s q u a r e f e e t o f
b u s i n e s s a s r e l a t e d t o square f e e t of parking needs a s r e l a t e d
t o distance, He d i s c u s s e d t h e s e i n terms of s u r f a c e parking.
Another w i t n e s s , a M r . Cassidy, p r o j e c t d i r e c t o r , d i s -
cussed f u r t h e r parking s t u d i e s being made on m u l t i - f l o o r e d
parking s t r u c t u r e s . W observe t h a t s t u d y i n g t h e testimony a s
e
r e l a t e d t o t h e maps l e a v e s one unimpressed w i t h numbers of parking
spaces r e q u i r e d . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t made no f i n d i n g s of f a c t
concerning s p e c i f i c parking requirements; n o r , a s we r e a d t h e
r e c o r d , could i t have because t h e r e simply was n o t any c l e a r
testimony concerning such requirements,
The only b a s i s f o r t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g
g r e a t e s t p u b l i c good and l e a s t p r i v a t e i n j u r y , i f t h a t be a
f i n d i n g of f a c t , i s t h e opinion of Dailey t h a t d e f e n d a n t s '
p r o p e r t y would be n e c e s s a r y t o t h e p r o j e c t . As related before,
t h i s opinion was h i g h l y s p e c u l a t i v e ; and d i d n o t c o n s i d e r f u r t h e r
s t u d i e s then i n p r o g r e s s . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n i t s c o n c l u s i o n s
o f law s t a t e d :
"The i n q u i r y h e r e i s one of a f a c t d e t e r m i n a t i o n
and i n t h i s c a p a c i t y t h i s Court i s commanded by
t h e Montana Supreme Court t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e
C i t y s h a l l n o t be overturned except on c l e a r and
convincing proof t h a t t h e t a k i n g h a s been e x c e s s i v e
o r a r b i t r a r y . Such c l e a r and convincing proof t h a t
t h e taking i s excessive or a r b i t r a r y i s not present
i n t h i s case, If
Here, we have t h e c i t y r e q u i r e d t o p r e s e n t proof of
n e c e s s i t y ; b u t , a s shown above, wind up w i t h t h e p r o p e r t y owners
having co by
pr:,~i? c l e a r and convincing proof af ].ark of neces-
sity! Sce df.sc-.ussion herei:=~a£t.erof S t a t e Highway Comrn'n v.
Yost Farm Co,, 142 Mont. 239, 384 P.2d 277.
But, i n any e v e n t , we do n o t f i n d s u f f i c i e n t c r e d i b l e
testimony t o uphold t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s .
The c i t y r e l i e d upon t h e g e n e r a l r u l e of law concerning
Urban Renewal Acts t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t urban renewal i s an "area"
concept and so long a s t h e c i t y e s t a b l i s h e d t h e boundaries i t d i d
n o t have t o prove n e c e s s i t y f o r t h e t a k i n g of i n d i v i d u a l proper-
ties. The c i t y c i t e s Berman v , Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 75 S,Ct. 98,
99 L ed 27; Anno, 44 ALR2d 1414,1416; 45 ALR3d 1054. W acknow-
e
the
ledge t h e l i t e r a l l y dozens o f c a s e s t h r o u g h o u t / n a t i o n which hold
i t i s s u f f i c i e n t t h a t t h e t a k i n g as a whole i s r e a s o n a b l y neces-
s a r y t o t h e c l e a r a n c e of b l i g h t e d a r e a s and prevention of t h e i r
recurrence. See: Velishka v , C i t y of Nashua, 99 N.H, 161, 106
A.2d 571. However, where i t i s shown, a s h e r e , t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y
i s n o t reasonably n e c e s s a r y t o t h e c l e a r a n c e of t h e b l i g h t e d a r e a
and prevention of i t s r e c u r r e n c e , t h e "area concept" does n o t
prevail,
This b r i n g s us t o t h e i s s u e here---whether t h e t a k i n g was
reasonably n e c e s s a r y t o t h e c l e a r a n c e of b l i g h t e d a r e a s and
prevention of t h e i r r e c u r r e n c e , i n p a r t i c u l a r under a s t a t u t e
which contemplates r e h a b i l i t a t i o n where p r a c t i c a l . The d i s t r i c t
c o u r t found t h a t i t was necessary and d i d t h e l e a s t p r i v a t e
injury. Did t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n ? O r , put
another way, i s t h e c r e d i b l e evidence s u f f i c i e n t t o uphold t h e
findings
Defendants1 property stands a t t h e extreme edge of t h e
project. It can be eliminated from t h e p r o j e c t without harming
t h e balance of t h e p r o j e c t , The Urban Renewal plan can be amended
f o r t h a t purpose. The testimony of a l l witnesses admits t h i s .
M r . Nesbit, c i t y c o n s t r u c t i o n engineer, was asked whether
new Jackson S t r e e t could be moved t e n f e e t e a s t , thus avoiding
defendants ' property "without g r e a t l y i n t e r f e r i n g with t h e o v e r a l l
project", He answered t h a t t h i s was s o , Then on f u r t h e r ques-
t i o n i n g , he explained i t would n o t i n t e r f e r e with t h e with t h e
II
renewal area" but would s l i g h t l y i n t e r f e r e with alignment of
new Jackson n o r t h a c r o s s S i x t h Avenue and and Allen S t r e e t , b u t
t h a t Allen S t r e e t was n o t a major feeder s t r e e t . He concluded
t h a t moving N w Jackson S t r e e t t e n f e e t e a s t would n o t a l t e r t h e
e
e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h e s t r e e t i n serving t h e area.
The "need" f o r defendants' property was f o r a parking a r e a ,
C l e t e Dailey, t h e t r a f f i c engineer who made a study f o r t h e Urban
11
Renewal plan, provided t h e testimony f o r t h e need" a s a parking
area. Dailey made h i s own study and r e l i e d on o t h e r s t u d i e s and
f o r e c a s t t h e need f o r parking. He agreed t h a t i f any of t h e
s t r u c t u r e s shown on t h e p r o j e c t e d land use map were n o t completed,
t h e tDtal demand f o r parking would be reduced, He a l s o agreed
t h a t even i f t h e proposed s t r u c t u r e s were b u i l t , they would have
t o be f u l l y occupied. I t i s c l e a r from D a i l e y ' s testimony t h a t
need f o r t h e parking t o be supplied when defendants' property
becomes a v a i l a b l e i s n o t a present need nor a need i n t h e reason-
a b l y foreseeable f u t u r e , The need w i l l only a r i s e i f and when t h e
- a is
a r-
e f u l l y redeveloped.
Thus, t h e concept of n e c e s s i t y f o r a p u b l i c use i s a
possi.ble f u t u r e n e c e s s i t y , I t s p r e s e n t a p p l i c a t i o n i s only i n
a "planning1' sense and a s t e p towards f u l f i l l m e n t of t h e long
range plan. I t i s c r y s t a l c l e a r t h a t defendants' property i s
sought now t o a w a i t money, m o t i v a t i o n , and hopes of t h e p l a n n e r s .
Defendants' p o s i t i o n i s simply t h a t t h e c i t y f a i l e d t o
show a r e a s o n a b l e need w i t h t h e a c t u a l , o r even r e a s o n a b l y
f o r e s e e a b l e , a b i l i t y t o complete t h e p r o j e c t f o r which t h e p r o p e r t y
i s needed.
There a r e numerous c a s e s i n Montana i n v o l v i n g t h e i s s u e
of n e c e s s i t y .
A r e c e n t review of t h e e n t i r e s u b j e c t of eminent domain
i s found i n Montana Power Co. v . Bokma, 153 Mont. 390, 397,399,
457 P.2d 769. There i t w a s s t a t e d :
II
Before t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t may o r d e r condemnation,
i t must f i n d t h a t t h e proposed t a k i n g i s n e c e s s a r y
t o t h e p u b l i c use under t h e circumstances of t h e
i n d i v i d u a l c a s e . S e c t i o n s 93-9905, 93-9911, R.C.M.
1947, The q u e s t i o n of n e c e s s i t y i s one of f a c t t o
b e determined a s o t h e r q u e s t i o n s of f a c t i n t h e
l i g h t of a11 t h e evidence. S t a t e ex r e l . Livingston
v , D i s t r i c t Court, 90 Mont. 191, 300 P, 916. N e c e s s i t y
does n o t mean a b s o l u t e o r i n d i s p e n s a b l e n e c e s s i t y
b u t r e a s o n a b l e , r e q u i s i t e , and proper f o r t h e accom-
plishment of t h e end i n view, under t h e p a r t i c u l a r
_c$rcumstances of t h e c a s e . S t a t e Highway Comm, v ,
Yost Farm Co,, 142 Mont. 239, 384 P.2d 277; B u t t e ,
A , & P. Ry, Co, v . Montana U.Ry. Co., supra.
h he t a k i n g of p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y by condemnation
proceedings must be compatible w i t h t h e g r e a t e s t
p u b l i c good and t h e l e a s t p r i v a t e i n j u r y . S e c t i o n
93-9906, R.C,M. 1947. This requirement i s s p e c i f i -
c a l l y made a p p l i c a b l e t o easements and rights-of-way.
3)
S e c t i o n 93-928 5),, R.C.M. 1947. The g r e a t e s t good
on t h e one han tne least i n j u r y on t h e o t h e r a r e
q u e s t i o n s o f f a c t t o be determined i n p a s s i n g upon
t h e q u e s t i o n of n e c e s s i t y . S t a t e ex r e l . L i v i n g s t o n
v . D i s t r i c t Court, s u p r a , quoted w i t h approval i n
S t a t e Highway Comm. v . Yost Farm Co., supra. These
q u e s t i o n s commonly a r i s e i n connection w i t h t h e
l o c a t i o n of t h e proposed improvement. Since t h e
condemnor h a s t h e e x p e r t i s e and d e t a i l e d knowledge
of c o n s i d e r a t i o n s involved i n determining l o c a t i o n
of t h e improvement, i t s c h o i c e of l o c a t i o n i s given
g r e a t weight. See S t a t e ex r e l . Bloomington Land &
Live Stock Co. v. D i s t r i c t Court, 34 Mont. 535, 88
P. 44; S t a t e ex r e l , 1,ivingston v. D i s t r i c t Court,
supra. Such c h o i c e w i l l n o t be overturned except on
c l e a r and convincing proof t h a t t h e t a k i n g h a s been
e x c e s s i v e o r a r b i t r a r y , i t n o t being t h e f u n c t i o n
of t h e j u r i d i c i a r y t o determine a s an engineer t h e
b e s t l o c a t i o n of t h e proposed improvement.
S t a t e Highway Comm. v. Crossen-Nissen Co.,
145 Mont. 251, 400 P.2d 283. O t h e o t h e r handn
when t h e condemnor f a i l s t o c o n s i d e r t h e ques-
t i o n of t h e l e a s t p r i v a t e i n j u r y between a l t e r -
n a t e r o u t e s e q u a l i n terms of p u b l i c good, i t s
a c t i o n i s a r b i t r a r y and amounts t o a n abuse of
d i s c r e t i o n . S t a t e Highway Comm. v. Danielsen,
146 Mont, 539, 409 P.2d 443." (Emphasis added),
The burden of demonstrating n e c e s s i t y r e s t s upon t h e con-
demnor who must e s t a b l i s h a prima f a c i e c a s e t o j u s t i f y t h e
taking, S t a t e Highway ~omm'nv. Yost Farm Co., 142 Mont. 239,
384 P.2d 2 7 7 . I n S t a t e Highway Comm'n v. Crossen-Nissen Co.,
145 Mont. 251, 254, 400 P.2d 283, t h e Court s t a t e d :
II
The requirement t h a t t h e condemnor must show
n e c e s s i t y f o r t h e p r o p e r t y taken does n o t mean
t h a t i t must be i n d i s p e n s a b l e t o t h e proposed
p r o j e c t . Rather t h e word ' n e c e s s a r y ' a s used i n
s e c t i o n 93-9905 means t h a t t h e p a r t i c u l a r p r o p e r t y
taken be reasonably r e q u i s i t e and proper f o r t h e
accomplishment of t h e purpose f o r which i t i s
sought under t h e p e c u l i a r circumstances of each
c a s e . I'
I t i s a g a i n s t t h i s measure t h a t t h e p r e s e n t c a s e must be
tested, Each d e c i s i o n c i t e d above n o t e s t h a t n e c e s s i t y must be
determined by a s c e r t a i n i n g whether t h e p r o p e r t y i s r e a s o n a b l y
needed f o r t h e accomplishment of t h e end i n view. Involved h e r e
i s n o t j u s t t h e a l l e g e d need f o r parking spaces on d e f e n d a n t s '
p r o p e r t y , b u t t h e e n t i r e development of t h e Urban Renewal a r e a .
While t h e evidence e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e parking w i l l be needed
t o s e r v e t h e Urban Renewal p r o j e c t , i t e s t a b l i s h e s a l s o t h a t t h e
p r o j e c t parking w i l l be r e q u i r e d only i f t h e e n t i r e Urban Renewal
p r o j e c t i s completed. That was M r . D a i l e y ' s testimony. He based
h i s c o n c l u s i o n s of t h e amount of parking needed upon t h e assumption
t h a t a l l of t h e p r o j e c t s on t h e Urban Renewal land use map would
be b u i l t and f i l l e d w i t h t h e number of t e n a n t s p r o j e c t e d by t h e
Urban Renewal department. C l e a r l y , t h e n e c e s s i t y f o r parking
must be measured a g a i n s t t h e r e a s o n a b l e p r o b a b i l i t y of t h e s u c c e s s
o f t h e Urban Renewal development. The parking need i s completely
interwoven w i t h t h e redevelopment of downtown Helena,
This c a s e i s e x c e p t i o n a l f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t t o e s t a b l i s h
r e a s o n a b l e n e c e s s i t y t h e c i t y of Helena must show n o t only t h e
amount of parking needed, b u t a l s o t h e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t t h e
s t r u c t u r e s which t h e parking i s designed t o s e r v e w i l l be con-
structed, Otherwise, t h e only l i m i t a t i o n upon t h e amount of
p r o p e r t y t h a t could be a c q u i r e d f o r Urban Renewal parking p r o j e c t s
i s t h e a r c h i t e c t ' s imagination.
W conclude t h a t " n e c e s s i t y " must b e shown a s a r e a s o n a b l e
e
need w i t h f o r e s e e a b l e a b i l i t y t o complete. Under t h e f a c t s of
t h i s c a s e we do n o t f i n d a showing of reasonably f o r e s e e a b l e
a b i l i t y t o complete. Defendants' going b u s i n e s s would be des-
t r o y e d , t h e p r o p e r t y a c q u i r e d , and simply h e l d f o r t h a t i n d e f i n i t e
f u t u r e when i t j u s t might b e needed. It i s n o t then r e a s o n a b l y
necessary t o the clearance of t h e b l i g h t e d a r e a and prevention
of i t s r e c u r r e n c e . Under t h i s r e a s o n i n g , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i d
n o t have s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence t o support i t s f i n d i n g s
and p a r t i c u l a r l y i t s conclusion of law t h a t t h e t a k i n g was neces-
sary.
Accordingly, t h e p r e l i m i n a r y o r d e r of condemnation i s
reversed.
~ s s o c i & Justice
-------
Judge, s i t t i n g f o r A s s o c i a t e
J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison,
M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell s p e c i a l l y concurring:
I concur i n t h e r e s u l t .
Associate J u s t i c e