78 
from the latter date could have the ironic result of preventing that 
which had already been declared to be a public purpose. 
A summary of the law of public use in Massachusetts 
Throughout this part of the paper, a number of observations have 
been made about the Massachusetts case law as it relates to the various 
aspects of the complex issue of public use. Perhaps it will be helpful 
now to summarize briefly these observations and compare them with 
the criteria established earlier in the paper. 
Public use, as a legal concept, has many dimensions. It serves as a 
restrictive force in Government exercise of the powers of eminent 
domain and spending, and, apparently in Massachusetts, the extent of 
this stricture is equal for the exercise of both powers. Moreover, in 
exercising these powers, public use displays another of its dimensions 
and that is the treatment of present uses and future uses. 
But what significance do these statements have for new community 
development? For one thing, acquisition of land, although originally 
limited to actual public uses, has historically been expanded to cases 
where even though the uses are in fact private, the courts have 
permitted them by labeling their purposes as public. Furthermore 
(notwithstanding the fact that most of these public purpose cases 
have been confined to urban renewal projects, where the public nature 
of their purpose was determined by the blighted condition of the land), 
there have been some cases (e.g., the Turnpike Authority case) where 
the acquisition of unblighted land was allowed to be used for purposes 
that the courts called public even though it can be persuasively 
argued that they were more private uses than public uses. 
Thus, the permissibility of acquiring unblighted land for new com- 
munity development will probably depend on whether the purpose 
can be demonstrated to be public. Furthermore, the favorable dis- 
position of the new community concept will also depend on a demon- 
stration that the proposed development is both specific and necessary. 
Ii this is done the requirements of future public use will also be 
satisfied. 
If these various demonstrations are made, does this mean that the 
purposes for Government involvement in new community develop- 
ment will also be satisfied? The answer to this question will obviously 
depend on which strategy the Government will choose to employ in 
acquiring the land for the new community. But it will also depend 
on how it makes the various showings that its actions are indeed 
public purposes. That is to say, if it is stated that the public purpose 
of the involvement in new communities is to conserve for the public 
the incremental value created by growth in the population and public 
expenditures, then it is clear that the purpose will not be achieved, 
because the Massachusetts case law is explicit that this type of specula- 
tion is not a permissible Government activity. 
However, such a conclusion raises yet another question: Will it be 
permissible for Government to recoup some of its investments, if it 
does so without emphasizing that the recoupment itself is not one of 
its specific purposes for becoming involved in new community develop- 
ment? Answers to questions of this type will be determined by the 
manner in which Government chooses to justify its involvement. 
Thus, it should be clear that the feasibility of Government-sponsored 
new communities will ultimately depend on how well its increased 
involvement can be justified. 
