Prince George's County v. Collington Crossroads, Inc.

• Decision Date: 05 June 1975
• Docket Number: No. 137,137
• Citation: Prince George's County v. Collington Crossroads, Inc., 339 A.2d 278, 275 Md. 171 (Md. 1975)
• Parties: PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, Maryland v. COLLINGTON CROSSORADS, INC.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 171

275 Md. 171

339 A.2d 278

PRINCE GEORGE'S COUNTY, Maryland v.COLLINGTON CROSSORADS, INC.

No. 137.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

June 5, 1975.

Michael O. Connaughton and Ellis J. Koch, Associate

County Attys., Upper Marlboro (Joseph S. Casula, County Atty., on the brief), for appellant.

Toby Prince Brigham, Miami, Fla. (John A. Buchanan and Sasscer, Clagett, Channing & Bucher, Upper Marlboro, on the brief), for appellee.

Argued before MURPHY, C. J., and SINGLEY, SMITH, DIGGES, LEVINE, ELDRIDGE and O'DONNELL, JJ.

ELDRIDGE, Judge.

In this case, the right of Prince George's County to take by eminent domain land belonging to the appellee, Collington Cross-roads, Inc., is at issue.The sold question presented to this Court is whether the purpose of the condemnation, namely the development of a multi-industry 'employment center,' or 'industrial park,' constitutes the requisite 'public use' so as to justify the County's exercise of the eminent domain power.¹

In 1968, the General Assembly authorized the issuance of bonds by Prince George's County to finance the acquisition of land for and the construction of 'public airport facilities and industrial parks.'Ch. 689, Acts of 1968, effective July 1, 1968.Section 1(b) of Ch. 689 provided:

'(T)he term 'industrial parks' shall mean (i) the acquisition, by any legal means, of land or property in Prince George's County generally in the southwest quadrant of the intersection of Maryland Route 214 and U.S. Route 301 in one contiguous tract as now determined by the County to be suitable as the site or sites for the establishment of one or more industrial parks to encourage and promote the creation of new industry and the growth of existing industry in Prince George's County and (ii) the grading of such site or sites, the construction of access roads, rail service tracks and taxiways, the construction and equipment of buildings, the construction and installation of all utility services and the doing of any and all things necessary in connection with or pertaining to the acquisition and development of such land or property as industrial sites including but not limited to the architectural and engineering services incident thereto.'

Section 10 of Ch. 689 contained the following legislative findings:

'(b) That a need exists for new and expanded industrial enterprises within said County and that the County Commissioners for Prince George's County should be enabled to promote industrial development therein; and

'(c) That the County Commissioners for Prince George's County by the acquisition of potential industrial lands may directly solicit industrial users of said land thereby affording the creation of employment opportunities for the residents of Prince George's County, the diversification and increase of the taxable base available to said County, and the extablishment of a healthy economic mix of gainful pursuits within said County so as not to depend in too large a degree upon one segment of the economy, e. g., federal government oriented industry; and

'(d) That the acquisition of potential industrial lands and construction of industrial facilities has the single object of preserving and improving the economic well-being of the residents of Prince George's County, and is found and determined to be in the public interest.'

Ch. 689 and the project authorized by it have been considered by this Court on four prior occasions.In City of Bowie v. County Comm'rs, 258 Md. 454, 267 A.2d 172(1970) Bowie challenged a trial court ruling that the issuance of $5,250,000 worth of bonds by the County under Ch. 689 was valid.We rejected Bowie's argument that the County Commissioners did not properly authorize issuance of the bonds and affirmed the trial court's decision.In City of Bowie v. County Comm'rs, 260 Md. 116, 271 A.2d 657(1970), Bowie appealed the trial court's dismissal of its bill of complaint to enjoin construction of the airport authorized by Ch. 689.We affirmed the trial court's decision that an injunction should not issue.

Next, in Prince George's Co. v. Beard, 266 Md. 83, 291 A.2d 636(1972), the County challenged a trial court ruling that the County Council had abandoned the project authorized under Ch. 689.We held that the Council by itself had no authority to abandon the project if the project had been included in the capital budget.By the time Beard reached us, the County had eliminated the airport feature of the industrial park project.The appellees, in Beard raised the issue of whether the industrial park alone constituted a public use.The record the County had made concerning the specific uses proposed for the industrial park was sparse.Therefore, we remanded the case to allow the County to produce more evidence concerning the exact nature of the proposed industrial park.Judge Smith, speaking for the Court, said (id. at 96-97, 291 A.2d at 643):

'Upon the remand the County will have full opportunity to spell out the use it proposes making of the property and all the details surrounding that use.In upholding condemnation for the purpose of constructing port facilities, a use that seems to be widely permitted, our predecessors in Marchant v. Baltimore, 146 Md. 513, 521, 126 A. 884(1924), spoke of the fact that the construction was 'according to a comprehensive plan, by which the commerce of the port (would) be most advantageously served, and its future growth encouraged.'In order for a court of perform its judicial function in this type of case the plan should indeed be comprehensive.'

The instant case represents the latest controversy surrounding the proposed industrial park.This case was initiated when, on August 22, 1968, shortly after the effective date of Ch. 689, a petition was filed in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County by the County seeking condemnation of 323.5092 acres of land for construction of a 'public airport facility.'The tract sought to be condemned is located in the southwest corner of the intersection of Maryland Route 214 and U.S. Routh 301.On December 3, 1968, the appellee, Collington Crossroads, Inc., filed a demurrer to the petition.On June 11, 1971Prince George's County moved to amend its petition to allow condemnation of the land solely for the purpose of developing an industrial park.On March 3, 1972, the court denied the motion and dismissed the petition for condemnation, and the County took an appeal, Pr. George's Co. v. Collington, 268 Md. 69, 299 A.2d 792(1973).²There, we rejected Collington's argument that the County Council had abandoned the industrial park project, on the basis of our holding in Beard that inclusion of the project in the capital budget precluded its cancellation by a County Councilbill.Collington conceded that the project had been included in the capital budget.We further pointed out that the Council had, subsequent to its bill attempting to withdraw authority to proceed with the project, passed another bill authorizing the Executive to proceed with plans for an industrial park.

Having concluded that the circuit court had improperly dismissed the County's petition, we turned to the issue of whether the court should have allowed the amendment sought by the County.We concluded that leave to amend should have been granted in order best to serve the ends of justice.We further stated (268 Md. at 78, 299 A.2d at 797):

'We express no opinion as to whether the use of the land of Collington contemplated by the County is or is not one for which an eminent domain proceeding may be maintained since, as indicated in Beard, we do not have sufficient information before un to make such a determination.

'Certainly a corollary to leave to amend should be agreement upon the part of the County to proceed to trial within a reasonable time. . . .The county should either perfect its plan and proceed expeditiously or dismiss the proceedings.'

Upon remand, the County filed an amended petition for condemnation of the 323.5092 acres for use as an industrial park.The petition alleged:

'That a need exists for new and expanded industrial and trade facilities within Prince George's County in order to attract industry and related enterprise and to diversify and increase the taxable base available in the County, and that need exists also for the establishment of a healthy economic mix of gainful pursuits within the County so as not to depend too heavily on one segment of the economy-e. g., Federal government-oriented industry-and that a need exists also to create employment opportunities for the residents of the County through the promotion and growth of new and existing industries.'

The appellee, Collington Crossroads, Inc., filed its answer on September 4, 1973.

A fifteen-member Industrial Park Task Force, authorized by the County Council in Bill No.CB-85-1972 and appointed by the County Executive, was assigned to formulate a comprehensive plan of development for the industrial park of which Collington's tract is proposed to be a part.The task force submitted its final plan (the 'Comprehensive Plan for the Prince George's County Employment Park') on November 23, 1973.The plan called for assembling by the County of about 1690 acres, 930 of which were already owned by the County.The plan contained the following statement of its objectives:

'Prince George's County has identified certain critical needs concerning an increasing imbalance between County potential and County realization.The proposed Employment Park is an opportunity to influence this imbalance by increasing the tax base and providing a balanced employment area with jobs for County residents, reducing their journey-to-work and increasing local control.The Park will provide a choice of prime sites for various businesses, clearly separated from residential neighborhoods.The Site, approximately 1700 acres, is well suited for the proposed use.Its development by the public sector will provide a unified, integrated...