Opinion of the Court
164 U. S. 403 (1896). Nor would the City be allowed to take property under the mere pretext of a public purpose, when its actual purpose was to bestow a private beneﬁt. The takings before us, however, would be executed pursuant to a “carefully considered” development plan. 268 Conn., at 54, 843 A. 2d, at 536. The trial judge and all the members of the Supreme Court of Connecticut agreed that there was no evidence of an illegitimate purpose in this case. Therefore, as was true of the statute challenged in Midkiff, 467 U. S., at 245, the City’s development plan was not adopted “to beneﬁt a particular class of identiﬁable individuals.”
On the other hand, this is not a case in which the City is planning to open the condemned land—at least not in its entirety—to use by the general public. Nor will the private lessees of the land in any sense be required to operate like common carriers, making their services available to all com-
- See also Calder v. Bull, 3 Dall. 386, 388 (1798) (“An act of the Legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great ﬁrst principles of the social compact, cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority. . . . A few instances will sufﬁce to explain what I mean. . . . [A] law that takes property from A. and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a Legislature with such powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it. The genius, the nature, and the spirit, of our State Governments, amount to a prohibition of such acts of legislation; and the general principles of law and reason forbid them” (emphasis deleted)).
- See 268 Conn., at 159, 843 A. 2d, at 595 (Zarella, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (“The record clearly demonstrates that the development plan was not intended to serve the interests of Pﬁzer, Inc., or any other private entity, but rather, to revitalize the local economy by creating temporary and permanent jobs, generating a signiﬁcant increase in tax revenue, encouraging spin-off economic activities and maximizing public access to the waterfront”). And while the City intends to transfer certain of the parcels to a private developer in a long term lease—which developer, in turn, is expected to lease the ofﬁce space and so forth to other private tenants—the identities of those private parties were not known when the plan was adopted. It is, of course, difﬁcult to accuse the government of having taken A’s property to beneﬁt the private interests of B when the identity of B was unknown.