79 
8. Legislative findings for public purpose 
The legal significance of legislative findings 
Throughout this part of the paper there have been, on balance, 
probably more negative than positive comments made about the legal- 
ity and constitutionality of Government involvement in new commu- 
nity development. However, in spite of the negative remarks, the 
feasibility of the Government sponsored new community concept will 
ultimately depend on how well the Government’s position is docu- 
mented by the legislature and advocated before the courts. The 
Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations sensed the 
gravity of this requirement when it stated: 
Particular care should be taken in drafting state legislation authorizing the 
exercise of eminent domain powers by land development agencies to include a clear 
and definite finding by the legislature that the acquisition of land for future devel- 
opment to assure the best possible use of natural resources is a public purpose. 
Courts increasingly defer to legislative findings of public purpose.®8 
In this section of the paper an effort will be made first to determine 
how much weight the Massachusetts courts will place on these types 
of findings, and second, to examine the various claims which might 
constitute an appropriate list of findings for state enabling legislation. 
The law is well established in Massachusetts that the findings of 
the legislature are to be given great weight by the courts (Allyndon 
decision). The unwillingness of the courts to pierce the ‘‘legislative 
thicket”? was exemplified in 1962 when the supreme judicial court 
declared: 
The principles applicable whenever the constitutionality of a statute is attacked 
are well established. Every presumption is indulged in favor of the validity of 
the statute. . . . There is a very wide discretion in the legislature. If the question 
is fairly debatable, courts cannot substitute their judgement for that of the 
legislature.89 
On some questions it appears that the legislative findings are 
handled by the courts as conclusive presumptions. One such question 
is the issue of ‘‘necessity’? which was discussed earlier under the 
heading of future use. Although the case law on future use poses 
some problems for new community and acquisition policies, it seems 
that most of these problems have been created by a lack of firm and 
specific legislative findings of necessity. Consider, for example, the 
ease of City of Boston v. Talbot, where the supreme judicial court, 
while ruling favorably on the permissability of a condemnation suit, 
demonstrated its deference to a clear legislative statement of 
necessity: 
The question whether the use for which land is taken under the right of eminent 
domain is a public use is a judicial question, and the determination of the legis- 
lature may be revised by the court. But if the use for which the taking is made is 
public, the question whether the taking of a particular piece of real estate 1s necessary 
or expedient is a legislative question, upon which the decision of the legislature, as a 
tribunal of fact, is conclusive.®° 
The content of the legislative findings 
It has been stressed throughout this paper that the public mecha- 
nism needed for new community development is one that would be 
88 ACI R, op. cit., p. 162. 
8 Hall-Omar Baking Co. v. Commissioner of Labor and Industry, 344 Mass. 694, 184 N.E. 2d 344, 348 (1962) 
% City of Boston v. Talbot, 91 N.E. 1015, 1016 (1910), emphasis added. 
