75 
The court began its opinion with the now-traditional observation that 
the Government could only purchase property for a public use.7® 
Secondly, it made a more novel and certainly more progressive 
observation that the property could be purchased to hold in reserve 
for a future public use. Thirdly, it observed that a sale of the acquired 
property is permissible so long as it is accompanied by a showing that 
circumstances have changed considerably since the property was first 
acquired. These three observations do sound promising, but then the 
court lowered the boom when it observed that it was not permissible 
for Government (or, more specifically in this case, an instrumentality 
created by Government) to speculate; that is, to buy property for the 
sole purpose of selling it later at a profit. This, of course, is the finding 
of “real estate’? involvement which ultimately proved fatal for the 
Government land acquisition in that particular case. 
On balance, the Salisbury case is not so damaging, even with its 
findings on “speculation.’’ The court in that case would probably 
have defined “speculation” to mean the present acquisition of property 
to create a profit in a future transaction. Courts in other States have 
used speculation in a much broader sense. For example, the court in 
the Michigan case cited earlier exemplified this broader interpretation 
when it observed that to purchase property before it was needed, in 
order to save the added expense of buying it at an inflated value, when 
it really was needed, is speculation, and therefore not a permissible 
Government activity. However, not all States have adopted this 
broad view of speculation. For example, a Florida court ruled that it 
is permissible to buy land that will be used in the future for an 
airport.’® Although there have been no decisions in Massachusetts 
like that in the Florida case, the Salisbury decision is certainly a 
precedent for a future decision that would allow acquisition for future 
use so long as the proposed use is public, and so long as the property 
is not being purchased for the exclusive purpose of selling it later 
at a profit. 
Excess land 
Another aspect of the future use question often arises under the 
rubric of “excess land acquisition”’. Generally this has been a question 
related almost exclusively with highway or street construction. For 
example, in 1910, the Massachusetts Legislature proposed buying Jand 
in downtown Boston to help improve the transportation flow for the 
business community there. The idea was to purchase enough land 
to improve accessibility vastly to and from the various businesses, 
In an advisory opinion, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 
ruled that these proposed purchases would be excessive and not public 
uses and therefore should be disallowed.*° 
The following year saw the ratification of an amendment to the 
Massachusetts Constitution which specifically permitted acquisition 
of “more land and property than are actually needed for the actual 
construction of such highways or streets.’”’ *' And by 1953 the excess 
condemnation doctrine was expanded even further. In that year, in 
78 Since there was no mention of “‘blight” in the entire case, it is presumed that the court was authorizing 
acquisition of unblighted land. 
729 Carlor Co. v. City of Miami, 62 So. 2d 897 (Fla.), cert. denied 346 U.S. 821 (1953). 
80 In re Opinion of the Justices, 91 N.E. 405 (1910). 
81 Art. 39, 1911. 
57—-242—T1 6 
