64 
use and eminent domain powers in an urban redevelopment project, 
makes clear that ‘“‘an expenditure (of public funds) is not necessarily 
barred because an individual as such may profit, nor is it necessarily 
valid because of incidental benefit to the public.’ °° The proper role for 
the courts is to determine with due deferrence to legislative findings, 
the real,®! primary,” dominating, or fundamental ** purpose of the 
statute; and if that purpose is public, to sustain the expenditure. 
The Allydon case suggests a nonexhaustive list of factors appropriate 
for court consideration in making the determination of public use.*° 
Not all the factors must be present in each case. As the court lists them, 
the factors relevant to new communities legislation are: (1) Whether 
the benefit of the legislation is available on equal terms to the entire 
public in the locality affected; (2) whether the service or commodity 
supplied is one needed by all or a large number of the public; (3) 
whether the enterprise bears directly and immediately, or only re- 
motely, on the public welfare; (4) whether the nature of the need to be 
met requires united effort under united control, cr can be served as 
well by individuai competition; (5) whether private enterprise in the 
past has failed in supplying the want or eradicating the evil; and (6) 
whether, insofar as benefits accrue to individuals, the whole of society 
has an interest in seeing those individuals benefited. 
Each of these factors would be met affirmatively with new com- 
munities legislation. The statewide need for alleviation of urban 
congestion already is clearly stated in the legislative finds of the 
proposed statute later in this paper.* The number of individuals 
residing in the State’s urban centers is certainly sufficiently large to 
satisfy the requirement of need by a substantial segment of the public. 
The new communities will be open and available to individuals of all 
income levels within the affected locality. New industry and com- 
merce attracted to the community will add to the general public 
welfare. The need for a united effort and the failure of private enter- 
prise in eradicating current urban evils are self-evident after one 
glance at existing urban centers. And insofar as private developers 
might benefit as individuals from the legislation, the entire public is 
benefited, for without some financial aid and incentive no developer 
would be able to raise funds sufficient to develop new communities 
and survive the timelag between time of investment and return on 
investment. 
Thus, it appears that the expenditure of money for the acquisition 
of land to build new communities satisfies the criteria of public use. 
At the very least this would seem to be true for a new community to 
be developed as a part of an urban renewal project, because according 
to the Allyndon case: “‘the elimination of slums can be found to be a 
direct benefit and advantage to all of the people... .” °® Such a 
conclusion, unfortunately, is of little help since the logical places to 
build new communities are not usually in the urban areas where much 
blight exists and little growth is occuring; on the contrary, the more 
40 Allydonn Realty Corp., v. Holyoke Housing Au; i 4 c 
BADIA, BEDS LOM oh Ba a fey g Authority, 304 Mass. 288, 293, 28 N.E. 2d 665, 667 (1939) 
%2 In re Opinion of the Justices, 332 Mass. 769, 782, 126 N.B. 2d 795, 802 (1955). 
: Ree of ue LE esol rs Mass, 760, 764, 135 N.E. 2d 665, 667 (1956). 
assachusetts Housing Finance Agency v. New England i - 
Aav. Bheots 987, 006, 240 We oa 509° 606% 1969), gland Merchants National Bank of Boston, 1969 Mass 
36 304 Mass. at 293, 23 N.E. 2d at 667-68. 
*See proposed legislation, pt. ITI, infra, sec. 3(4). 
% Allyndon Realty Corp. y. Holyoke Housing Authority, 304 Mass. 288, 294, 23 NW 2d 665, 668 (1939). 
