77 
mediate construction before it can determine the necessity for taking private 
property for a public purpose.® 
The planned ultimate use of the land, of course, must be for a public 
purpose, but if the only purpose is to generate revenue, courts would be 
unlikely to uphold acquisition. However, where revenue raising is only 
incidental to the public purpose, then the taking is more likely to be 
upheld.** 
Flexibility is also an important part of an advance acquisition pro- 
gram, particularly so where new communities may not be able to be 
projected with as much certainty as highways, but 1t seems clear that 
once the Government agency obtains title in fee in good faith, it may 
dispose of land or shift its uses if changed conditions dictate. It may 
also receive income from lease or rentals during the interim holding 
period.®’ 
Court decisions concerning review of advance land condemnation 
programs are few. Few, if any, courts have prohibited advance con- 
demnation per se. Aside from fraud and bad faith, and assuming the 
projected use is for a valid public purpose, courts have focused their 
attention upon the reasonableness of the time period involved. 
A major objection to a land bank is apparently fear of “socialism” 
and of large-scale governmental ownership of land, and that individuals 
may be placed in a tenurial relationship with Government. The fact 
remains, however, that Government is the largest owner of land in the 
United States and is increasing its acquisition of land daily for public 
parks and other uses. The fact that, in new community development, 
land would be returned to private ownership after condemnation 
should operate to reduce these apprehensions. 
With new community development, there may be a problem in 
determining whether or not land is being taken in advance. H, for 
example, the projected size of the new community were 100,000 popu- 
lation and 10,000 acres, initial development might require only 500 
acres. More land would be developed in stages after the land was 
improved and sales were made. Eventual completion of the community 
might, however, require a substantial period of time—10 to 15 years or 
more. Some land would not be developed until years after original 
development had begun. If condemnation of this land, which was 
programed for later development was invalidated as being a taking too 
far in advance of need, then new community development could be 
prevented. Owners of land could develop according to their own plans 
and reap appreciated values caused by the new community developers 
investment of resources. Regulation might be construed as unreason- 
able, but the developer would be powerless to exercise eminent 
domain. Later condemnation, because of the costs of improvements, 
would be prohibitively expensive and new community development 
could be effectively prevented. 
Cases or restrictions which state that land may be taken in advance 
of actual need only when such period is reasonable should be inter- 
preted, in the instance of new community development, to mean in 
advance of the date when the development of the new community 
begins and not the date of ultimate completion. Measuring the period 
~ 8 tCarlor Co. v. City of Miami, 62 So. 2d. 897 (Fla.), cert. denied 346 U.S. 821 (1953). 
8 See Courtesy Sandwich Shop v. Port of New York Authority, 190 N.E. 2d 402 (N.Y. 1963). Les judicial 
objection should be evident where revenues obtained are reinvested in the new community. 
87 See cases discussed in U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, ‘‘Advance Acquisition 
by Local Governments” (1968), at note 9. 
