Jeff, you are correct.
The North Carolina Supreme Court, in an embarassing opinion, held that the Piedmont Triad Airport Authority (PTAA) could seize private property not because it met the requirement of a public use, but because it met the definition of a public purpose.
However, NC courts and the US Supreme Court haven’t used “public use” for a long time. The unique aspect of this case was that it was a taking for a private use.
PTAA seized private property for, as the Court acknowledged, “the exclusive use and benefit of Federal Express.”
So even though the taking was for a private use, it also was for the “public purpose” of improving airports. According to the Court, the primary goal for the taking was improving airports (which benefits the public) and there was just an incidental benefit to FedEx.
This is a great example of how:
1) As long as any type of public purpose (improving airports) is identified, it doesn’t even matter if the government takes property from one private party and gives it to another private party.
2) This case is a great example why simply prohibiting takings for economic development isn’t enough–this case had nothing to do with economic development. An amendment needs to prohibit all seizures of property from one private party and transfer of the property to another private party, whatever the underlying reason.
