State ex rel. Washington State Convention and Trade Center v. Evans, 65607-0
| Decision Date | 12 November 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 65607-0,65607-0 |
| Citation | 966 P.2d 1252,136 Wn.2d 811 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | The STATE of Washington, ex rel. the WASHINGTON STATE CONVENTION AND TRADE CENTER, Respondent, v. Julia M. EVANS, Robert J. Evans, Millie Evans, John P. Lycette, JR., Trustee under the Will of Robley H. Evans, deceased, Julia M. Albee, John Doe Albee, Dina Corporation, Diller Associates, Earl B. Diller Trust, Hertz Corporations, McLean Family Limited Partnership, Robert J. Allerdice, Charles R. Carey Trust, Estate of Charles R. Carey, Mary V. Sparks, John Doe Sparks, William J. Boyce, Jeanne P. Boyce, the Adele Keller Family LTD. Partner Ship, Yen Lui Studios, Inc., Appellants. |
Christine Gregoire, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Wright, Asst. Atty. Gen., Olympia, John R. Ellis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Seattle, for Respondent.
Property owners challenge a King County Superior Court order adjudicating public use and necessity that authorizes the State to condemn their property for expansion of the Washington State Convention and Trade Center (Convention Center or Center). At issue is whether the State may exercise the power of eminent domain under article I, section 16 (amendment 9), given the anticipated partial private use of the condemned property. We hold that the State may use the power of eminent domain to acquire the property for the Convention Center expansion project because the State seeks to condemn no more property
than would be necessary to accomplish the purely public component of the project.
The Convention Center plans to construct 110,000 square feet of new heavy load exhibit space. The Legislature approved the use of eminent domain to acquire property for the expansion and approved a grant of $111.7 million dollars of State funding. The Legislature conditioned this grant on the Center's ability to raise $15 million in outside governmental or private funding. RCW 67.40.180. The Washington State Convention and Trade Center Board (WSCTC Board) formed a task force to examine expansion possibilities, which narrowed the options down to either an addition to the east of the current facility or an addition to the north.
The east expansion alternative would extend onto the First Hill neighborhood, across Hubbell Place and the Union Street right-of-way to Terry Avenue. Four residential apartment buildings would be demolished, causing a total loss of 394 mixed-income housing units. Convention Center operations would be shut down for between six months to a year while current physical plant structures were being relocated.
The north expansion site would extend the existing Convention Center across Pike Street and Eighth Avenue. A 127-unit apartment tower, a condominium/garage structure, six parking lots, and a rental car outlet would be displaced. The current exhibit space sits roughly four stories above ground at Eighth Avenue. In order to be contiguous to the current exhibit space, a north expansion would likewise sit four stories above street level. The north alternative would thus create surplus ground level space that the Center could lease or sell to reach the $15 million in outside contribution required by the Legislature.
The task force evaluated both options and considered the financial requirements, community impact, and effect on The Convention Center then solicited proposals for private development in the space below the proposed north expansion. R.C. Hedreen Company (Hedreen) submitted a development plan that was eventually chosen by the Center as the most suitable to its needs. The Board entered into an Option, Purchase and Development Agreement with Hedreen. Under this agreement, Hedreen will contribute the $15 million required for legislative approval of the project. Hedreen also will build the outer shell of the Convention Center. This shell will be supported by huge foundation columns, extending from the exhibit hall to the ground, which will be stabilized by interstitial floors. Also, numerous stairways, utility runs, and other support facilities will intrude down into the space underneath the exhibit hall. In return, Hedreen will take fee simple title to the remaining space below the Convention Center for construction of retail and parking, and will construct a hotel tower in the northwest corner of the parcel (on land already owned by the convention center and not subject to these eminent domain proceedings).
urban fabric of each alternative. The task force preferred the north alternative, basing its decision, in part, on social and architectural concerns. However, one compelling factor in the decision to choose the north alternative was the State's ability to meet the legislative outside contribution requirement by leasing or selling the surplus space created underneath the north expansion. The WSCTC Board adopted these findings and designated the north site as the preferred alternative.
The Convention Center instituted condemnation proceedings pursuant to RCW 67.40.020 and RCW 8.04 to acquire fee simple title to nine tracts of land in the north expansion area. One property owner granted immediate use and possession. The remaining property owners challenged the condemnation. They argued that the State was impermissibly seeking to condemn their property for private use. The property owners also argued that the decision to choose the north site based on the possibility of private funding was arbitrary and capricious.
The Superior Court, in its amended and final findings of fact and conclusions of law, ruled in favor of the Center and entered an order adjudicating public use and necessity. The Court found that (1) the expansion of the Convention Center is a public purpose; (2) the exhibit space would cover the entire area of the nine parcels sought to be condemned; (3) the Center will be making a public use of the exhibition space, the support columns, and stairwells, and the lateral flooring; and (4) the area beneath the hall and between the columns will be created as an inevitable consequence of constructing the public space, and must be leased to another entity or remain empty. The court also found that in order to be successful as an exhibit hall, the exhibit area must be open and cannot be penetrated by support columns. Thus, no structure can be built above the exhibit hall space. This structural requirement precludes access to the air rights above the exhibit hall and, therefore, such air rights would be taken for purely public purposes.
Based on these findings, the court concluded that the volumetric ratio of private use to public use is approximately 20 percent to 80 percent. The court thus held that the private use would accompany the public use in a subordinate way, and that sale of the space to private users to prevent waste is an incidental use. The court also held that the expansion to the north site rather than the east site was necessary. The north option dislocated fewer housing units and the Convention Center could continue operating during construction. Were the east site chosen, it would require the relocation of mechanical and utility functions resulting in a shutdown of the convention center for six months to a year.
The property owners appealed the trial court's order and the case was transferred to this court for direct review.
The power of eminent domain is an inherent power of the state. Miller v. City of Tacoma, 61 Wash.2d 374, 382, 378 P.2d 464 (1963). This power is limited by both the
Washington State Constitution and by statute. Article I, section 16 (amendment 9) prohibits the State from taking private property for private use. RCW 8.04.070 requires that a proposed condemnation be necessary for the public use. This court has developed a three-part test to evaluate eminent domain cases. For a proposed condemnation to be lawful, the State must prove that (1) the use is public; (2) the public interest requires it; and (3) the property appropriated is necessary for that purpose. In re City of Seattle, 96 Wash.2d 616, 625, 638 P.2d 549 (1981) (citing King County v. Theilman, 59 Wash.2d 586, 593, 369 P.2d 503 (1962)). Property owners challenge the present condemnation on the first and third grounds. They argue that the expansion project is not "for public use" because Hedreen's participation creates an impermissible mix of public and private uses. They also argue that the adoption of the north alternative was not necessary given the availability of an east alternative that did not involve private participation.
The constitution prohibits the taking of private property for a private use. However, this language does not create a blanket prohibition on the private use of land condemned by the State. As long as the property was condemned for the public use, it may also be put to a private use that is merely incidental to that public use. Chandler v. City of Seattle, 80 Wash. 154, 159, 141 P. 331 (1914); City of Tacoma v. Nisqually Power Co., 57 Wash. 420, 428, 107 P. 199 (1910). The property owners concede that the exhibit hall space will be put to a public use. The question then is whether Hedreen's participation in the expansion project corrupts the public nature of the project, or whether it is merely incidental.
The property owners argue that Hedreen's involvement in the project is not incidental. They rely on In re City of Seattle, 96 Wash.2d 616, 638 P.2d 549 (1981) (Westlake) for the proposition that a private use is not incidental if the public and private uses are combined "in such a way that Westlake involved the proposed acquisition of the properties that now constitute the Westlake Mall in Seattle. The ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sound Transit v. Miller
... ... Miller Building Enterprises, Inc., a Washington corporation, Appellants, ... Northwest Community ... , the Washington Legislature authorized the state's largest counties to seek voter approval to ... the area was best suited for the transit center. Notice of this meeting and its agenda were ... State ex rel. Lange v. Superior Court, 61 Wash.2d 153, 377 ... See, e.g., State ex rel. Wash. State Convention & Trade Ctr. v. Evans, 136 Wash.2d 811, 966 P.2d ... ...
-
Htk Management v. Seattle Monorail Auth.
... ... No. 76462-0 ... Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc ... Argued March 17, 2005 ... , Charity Osborn, Institute for Justice/WA State Chapter, Seattle, Jeanette Motee Petersen, ... will connect Ballard, Key Arena, Seattle Center, Belltown, downtown ... Page 1170 ... , 862, 638 P.2d 633 (1982) (citing State ex rel. Hunter v. Superior Court, 34 Wash.2d 214, 217, ... State ex rel. Wash. State Convention & Trade Ctr. v. Evans, 136 Wash.2d 811, 817, 966 ... ...
-
Pud v. Naftzi
... ... 2 OF GRANT COUNTY, Washington, a municipal corporation, Respondent, ... NORTH AMERICAN FOREIGN TRADE ZONE INDUSTRIES, LLC, a Washington limited ... State ... 151 P.3d 181 ... v. King County, 74 ... 2d 530, 537, 105 P.3d 26 (2005); State ex rel. Wash. State Convention & Trade Ctr. v. Evans, ... of property needed for convention center lawful even though an incidental private use ... ...
-
Manufactured Housing Communities v. State
... ... MANUFACTURED HOUSING COMMUNITIES OF WASHINGTON, a nonprofit Washington Corporation, Petitioner, ... the Washington State Constitutional Convention in 1889, concern was publicly voiced over the ... , 627, 638 P.2d 549 (1981) (citing State ex rel. Oregon-Washington R.R. & Navigation Co. v ... State ex rel.Wash. State Convention & Trade Ctr. v. Evans, 136 Wash.2d 811, 822, 966 P.2d ... ...
-
Understanding the Limits of Power: Judicial Restraint in General Jurisdiction Court Systems
...v. State, 1998 WL 893152 (Wash. Dec. 24, 1998) (football stadium); Washington Convention and Trade Center v. Evans, 136 Wash. 2d 811, 966 P.2d 1252 (1998) (convention center); Citizens for More Important Things v. King Cty., 131 Wash. 2d 411, 932 P.2d 135 (1997) (baseball stadium); City of ......
-
Condemned if They Do, Condemned if They Don't: Eminent Domain, Public Use Abandonment, and the Need for Condemnee Protections
...2d 612, 629, 121 P.3d 1166, 1174-75 (2005) (citing State ex rel. Wash. State Convention and Trade Ctr. v. Evans, 136 Wash. 2d. 811, 817, 966 P.2d 1252, 1255 82.Id. at 629, 121 P.3d at 1174-75 (citing State ex rel. Wash. State Convention and Trade Ctr. v. Evans, 136 Wash. 2d. 811, 817, 966 P......
-
Reviving necessity in eminent domain.
...13 RICHARD R. POWELL, POWELL ON REAL PROPERTY [section] 79F.06[2][a][ii][B] (Michael Allan Wolf ed., 2009). (170.) Id. (171.) Id. (172.) 966 P.2d 1252 (Wash. 1998); see generally Cristin Kent, Comment, Condemned if They Do, Condemned if They Don't: Eminent Domain, Public Use Abandonment, an......