71 
public and judicial unease at the possibility of uncontrolled eminent 
domain takings. 
Although no case precisely analogous to that posed by new com- 
munities legislation has come before the court as yet, the direction 
in which the court has been moving in the area of eminent domain 
suggests that the court “could” uphold a delegation of the general 
court’s eminent domain power to a public new communities corporation 
under an enabling act containing carefully drawn guidelines and a 
strong legislative finding of public purpose. 
2. Issues regarding future use 
The nature of the problem 
The primary purpose of this part of the paper is to consider the 
implications of government involvement in acquisition of land for 
new communities. At this time one final distinction is necessary be- 
fore the analysis proceeds. 
It is obvious that in almost every case where a large tract of land 
could be purchased for a new community, the development process 
would be strung out over a number of years. The reasons for this are 
Obvious—limited working capital, labor force, management talent, 
marketing staff, etc. To confirm the length of time needed for de- 
velopment, one only need look at the development strategies for 
existing new communities to discover that the staging periods generally 
range from 10 to 20 years. The recognition of these extended develop- 
ment periods suggest a temporal dimension of land acquisition that 
is significant for the present analysis. Perhaps an examination oi the 
subject of government land acquisition should be discussed at either 
end of the development timespan; that is, acquisition of land that 
will be used immediately for a new community and acquisition of land 
that will be used for future expansion of a new community. 
Although the distinction between present and future use in this 
particular context may seem arbitrary and ill-defined, it is crucial 
to an adequate legal analysis of the entire issue of land acquisition 
and control, because it is conceivable that a given governmental 
action may be appropriate for a present use, but invalid for a future 
use. It is interesting to note that most of the new community litera- 
ture concerned with the legality of government involvement in the 
acquisition and control of land has concentrated implicitly on ques- 
tions of present use. However, the issue oi future use has not been 
completely neglected, as a great deal of the recent ‘‘open space” 
literature has dealt with questions concerning it.°% 
The issue of new community development in Massachusetts has 
not gone unnoticed by legal scholars. In fact only last spring a paper 
was prepared on the questions of the use of eminent domain and 
police power controls applicable to new community development on 
vacant, unblighted land in Massachusetts.®* Although the paper was 
throughout a thoughtful and articulate analysis of Massachusetts law, 
its emphasis was primarily upon present use. In order to complete, 
rather than duplicate these efforts, the focus of this part of the paper 
will be primarily on questions of future use. 
68 See ‘Techniques for Preserving Open Spaces,’’ Harvard Law Review, vol. 75, p. 1622 (1962). 
69 Morgan, ‘‘Certain Legal Problems Suggested by the Creation of New Towns in Massachusetts,’’ Mas- 
sachusetts Department of Community Affairs (1969) 59 pages. 
