Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Susette KELO et al.
v.
CITY OF NEW LONDON et al.
No. 16742.


Argued Dec. 2, 2002.
Decided March 9, 2004.

FN1. This case originally was argued before a panel of this court consisting of Justices Borden, Norcott, Palmer, Vertefeuille and Zarella. Thereafter, the court, pursuant to Practice Book § 70-7(b) , sua sponte, ordered that the case be considered en banc.  Accordingly, Chief Justice Sullivan and Justice Katz were added to the panel, and they have read the record, briefs and transcript of the oral argument.

NORCOTT , J.

The principal issue in this appeal is whether the public use clauses of the federal and state constitutions authorize the exercise of the eminent domain power in furtherance of a significant economic development plan that is projected to create in excess of 1000 jobs, to increase tax and other revenues, and to revitalize an economically distressed city, including its downtown and waterfront areas.  The plaintiffs, [FN2] owners of certain real property in the city of New London, appeal  [FN3] from the judgment of the trial court denying **508 their request for permanent injunctive relief to prevent the defendants, the city of New London (city), a municipal corporation, and the New London Development Corporation (development corporation), a private nonprofit economic development corporation, from exercising eminent domain authority to condemn the plaintiffs' properties located on parcel 3 of the development corporation's municipal development plan (development plan).  The defendants cross appeal  [FN4] from the judgment of the trial court granting the plaintiffs' request for permanent injunctive relief with respect to those properties located on parcel 4A of the development plan.

FN2. The individual plaintiffs are Susette Kelo, Thelma Brelesky, Pasquale Cristofaro, Margherita Cristofaro, Wilhelmina Dery, Charles Dery, James Guretsky, Laura Guretsky, Pataya Construction Limited Partnership and William Von Winkle.

FN3. The plaintiffs appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court, and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199(c) and Practice Book § 65-2 .

FN4. The defendants cross appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court, and we transferred the cross appeal, along with the plaintiffs' appeal;  see footnote 3 of this opinion;  to this court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199(c) and Practice Book § 65-2 .

*6 On appeal, the plaintiffs claim that the trial court improperly concluded that:  (1) the taking of the plaintiffs' land was authorized under chapter 132 of the General Statutes;  (2) economic development constitutes a valid public use under the takings clauses of the state and federal constitutions, and that these takings will sufficiently benefit the public and bear reasonable assurances of future public use;  (3) the delegation of the eminent domain power to the development corporation was not unconstitutional; (4) the taking of the plaintiffs' land on parcel 3 was reasonably necessary to the development plan;  and (5) the development corporation, by allowing a private social club, but not the plaintiffs' properties to remain on parcel 3, did not violate the plaintiffs' federal and state constitutional rights to equal protection of the laws.  We affirm the judgment of the trial court with respect to the claims presented in the plaintiffs' appeal.

On their cross appeal, the defendants contend that the trial court improperly concluded that:  (1) the condemnation of the plaintiffs' properties on parcel 4A was not reasonably necessary to accomplish the development plan;  and (2) the city's general power to widen and alter its roadways did not justify the taking of the plaintiffs' properties on parcel 4A. We reverse the judgment of the trial court with respect to the defendants' cross appeal.

The record reveals the following background facts and procedural history, as aptly set forth in the trial court's comprehensive memorandum of decision.  "In 1978, the [development corporation] was established to assist the city in planning economic development.  In January, 1998, the state bond commission authorized bonds to support planning activities in the Fort Trumbull area [of the city] and property acquisition to be undertaken by [the development corporation] in support of the project and other money toward the ultimate *7 creation of a state park at Fort Trumbull.  In February, 1998, [Pfizer, Inc. (Pfizer) ] announced that it was developing a global research facility on the ... New London Mills site which is adjacent to the Fort Trumbull area.  In April, 1998, the New London city council gave initial approval to prepare a development plan for the Fort Trumbull area and the [development corporation] began holding informal neighborhood meetings regarding the [development plan] process.  In May, 1998, the city council authorized [the development corporation] to proceed under chapters 130, 132 and/or 588 ( l ) of the [General] Statutes.

"The state bond commission approved more funds for [the development corporation] activity.  In June, 1998, the city formally conveyed the New London Mills site to Pfizer.  In July, 1998, a consulting team **509 was appointed for the state Environmental Protection Act process and to prepare the [development plan].  Six alternative plans for the project area were considered as part of the required environmental impact evaluation."

The development plan area is approximately ninety acres in size and is located on the Thames River in New London, adjacent to the proposed Fort Trumbull State Park, and the Pfizer global research facility, which opened in June, 2001.  See Appendix to this opinion.  It presently includes residential and commercial areas, and is comprised of approximately 115 land parcels.  The development plan area also includes the presently closed United States Naval Undersea Warfare Center, which is thirty-two acres, and also the regional water pollution control facility.

In its preface to the development plan, the development corporation stated that its goals were to create a development that would complement the facility that Pfizer was planning to build, create jobs, increase tax and other revenues, encourage public access to and *8 use of the city's waterfront, and eventually "build momentum" for the revitalization of the rest of the city, including its downtown area.

The development plan itself is divided into seven parcels of land. Parcel 1 will include a waterfront hotel and conference center, along with marinas for both transient tourist boaters, and commercial fishing vessels.  Parcel 1 also will include a public walkway along the waterfront.  Parcel 2 will provide for approximately eighty new residences, organized into an urban neighborhood and linked by public walkway to the remainder of the development plan, including the Fort Trumbull State Park. Space will be reserved at the southern end of parcel 2 for the United States Coast Guard Museum (museum), which will be moved to the development plan area from the nearby United States Coast Guard Academy.

Parcel 3 is projected to have at least 90,000 square feet of high technology research and development office space and parking. [FN5]  This office space would be located close to other research and development facilities, including those of Pfizer.  The location of parcel 3 allows for direct vehicular access to the development therein, obviating the need for that traffic to pass through the rest of the development area.  Parcel 3 also will retain the existing Italian Dramatic Club, a private social organization with its own building. Four properties owned by three of the plaintiffs are located on parcel 3.

FN5. A major health club complex available to hotel guests and other city residents initially had been planned for parcel 3. It subsequently was relocated to parcel 1 as part of the hotel and conference center complex because, according to Admiral David Goebel, the development corporation's chief operating officer, the development corporation and its consultants had concluded that there was "no stand-alone economic viability for such a health club."  The health club constructed pursuant to the development plan, however, will remain open to the public.

Parcel 4 is subdivided into two smaller parcels, 4A and 4B. Parcel 4A is designated for "park support";  it *9 will provide parking or retail services for the adjacent state park.  Parcel 4B will include a marina, which will be a renovation of an existing marina and include slips for both recreational boating and commercial fishing operations.  The walkway will be continued through these parcels.  Eleven properties owned by four of the plaintiffs are located on parcel 4A.

Parcel 5 also is subdivided into three separate parcels, which cumulatively will include 140,000 square feet of office space, **510 parking and retail space.  Parcel 6 will be developed for a variety of water-dependent commercial uses.  Parcel 7 is small and will be used for additional office or research and development use.

According to Admiral David Goebel, chief operating officer of the development corporation, the development corporation will own the land located within the development area.  The development corporation will enter into ground leases of various parcels to private developers;  those leases will require the developer to comply with the terms of the development plan.  At the time of trial, the development corporation was negotiating with Corcoran Jennison, a developer, with the intention of entering into a ninety-nine year ground lease of parcels 1, 2 and 3 with the developer.  Under the lease, Corcoran Jennison will pay the development corporation rent of $1 per year.  Corcoran Jennison will actually develop the parcels, a process that includes marketing for and locating tenants.

The development corporation estimated that the development plan, which is a composite of the most beneficial features of six alternate development plans that it had considered, [FN6] would have a significant socioeconomicimpact *10 on the New London region.  The development plan is expected to generate approximately between:  (1) 518 and 867 construction jobs;  (2) 718 and 1362 direct jobs;  and (3) 500 and 940 indirect jobs.  The composite parcels of the development plan also are expected to generate between $680,544 and $1,249,843 in property tax revenues for the city, in which 54 percent of the land area is exempt from property taxes.  These gains would occur in a city that, with the exception of the new Pfizer facility adjacent to the development plan area that now employs approximately 2000 people, recently has experienced serious employment declines, particularly with the loss of approximately 1900 government sector positions, and the closure of the United States Naval Undersea Warfare Center in 1996, which transferred more than 1000 positions to Newport, Rhode Island. [FN7]  Indeed, the state office of policy and management has designated the city a " 'distressed municipality.' "

FN6. The alternate plans considered by the development corporation included:  (1) no action, with the assumption that some development activities would proceed under the direction of other entities, such as the United States Navy, without action by the development corporation;  (2) recreational and cultural facilities to complement the adjacent state park;  (3) residential construction with minor amounts of retail and office space;  (4) a business campus supported by the hotel and conference center;  and (5) two mixed use alternates combining residences, recreational, commercial, hotel and retail uses in differing arrangements.

FN7. The New London region has benefited economically by the opening and the expansion of casinos, specifically Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun. We note, however, that the city itself has not been a major beneficiary of this economic growth.

The development corporation board approved the development plan in early 2000;  the city council also approved it shortly thereafter. [FN8]  When it approved the development plan in January, 2000, the city council also had authorized the development corporation to acquire properties within the development area.  Thereafter, in October, 2000, the development corporation **511 voted to *11 use the power of eminent domain to acquire properties within the development area whose owners had not been willing to sell them.  In November, 2000, the development corporation filed the condemnation proceedings that gave rise to the actions presently on appeal. Thereafter, in December, 2000, the plaintiffs brought the present action challenging the condemnations.

FN8. As required by statute;  see General Statutes § 8-191 ;  the state department of economic and community development, the state department of environmental protection, the state office of policy and management, and the Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments, also approved the development plan.  Hereafter, all references in this opinion to the department are to the department of economic and community development.

The trial court noted in its memorandum of decision that "[e]ach of the plaintiffs testified and said they wished to remain in their homes for a variety of personal reasons.  Two of the people referred to the fact that their families have lived in their homes for decades.  They all testified that they loved their homes and the Fort Trumbull area.  Several have put a lot of work into their property and all of them appeared ... to be sincerely attached to their homes.  One owner, [Susette] Kelo, loved the view her house afforded her and the fact that it was close to the water.  All testified that they were not opposed to new development in the Fort Trumbull area.  Also, two of the plaintiffs own their property as business investments--the rental of apartments.  These two people have put much time, money and effort into renovating their properties, one has owned his property for seventeen years, the other for about eight years."

After a seven day bench trial, the court granted permanent injunctive relief to, and dismissed the pending eminent domain actions against, the four plaintiffs who live on parcel 4A of the development plan.  The court, however, upheld the takings of the parcel 3 properties. [FN9]  This appeal and cross appeal followed.  Additional facts and procedural history will be set forth in greater detail as necessary for the resolution of this appeal.

FN9. The trial court did, however, grant a temporary injunction to the parcel 3 property owners, pending the resolution of this case on appeal.

[1] [2] The plaintiffs' first claim is that the trial court improperly determined that the development corporation has the authority to condemn the plaintiffs' property under chapter 132 of the General Statutes. [FN10]  The plaintiffs contend that chapter 132;   General Statutes § 8-186 et seq.; applies only to "unified land and water areas" and "vacated commercial plants," and that their homes fit neither of those categories, because under the language and legislative history of chapter 132, the statutory term "unified land and water areas" refers only to undeveloped land.  The defendants claim, in response, that, in the context of the statutory language of the entire chapter, the term "unified land and water areas" includes developed land, and moreover, to conclude otherwise would frustrate the declared legislative purpose of restoring the state's economic health.  We agree with the defendants.

FN10. We first address the plaintiffs' statutory claims because "[o]rdinarily, [c]onstitutional issues are not considered unless absolutely necessary to the decision of a case."  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)   Bauer v. Waste Management of Connecticut, Inc., 234 Conn. 221, 230, 662 A.2d 1179 (1995) .

We begin our analysis by reviewing the conclusions of the trial court on this issue.  The trial court noted that it was undisputed that the development corporation attempted **512 to exercise its eminent domain powers pursuant to only chapter 132 of the General Statutes, and stated that it would construe the eminent domain statutes strictly against the condemning authority.  The trial court rejected the plaintiffs' arguments that chapter 132 applies only to:  (1) multimunicipality districts;  and (2) *13 undeveloped land other than vacated commercial plants.  The court conducted a thorough analysis of the chapter's language and legislative history, and concluded that references throughout the chapter to "structures" and "demolition," as well as the requirement in General Statutes § 8-189(f) that a plan exist for relocating project area occupants, indicated that the chapter applies to developed land as well as vacant land.  In so concluding, the court rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the subsequent addition of "vacated commercial plants" to the chapter was necessary because, otherwise, the statute would apply only to vacant land. [FN11]

FN11. The trial court also rejected the plaintiffs' contention that chapter 132 of the General Statutes applies only to multimunicipality economic development projects on contiguous land areas.  We need not address this conclusion in any detail because the plaintiffs have not challenged it on appeal.

[3] [4] [5] We first set forth the applicable standard of review, and the process by which we interpret statutes.  "Statutory construction is a question of law and therefore our review is plenary."  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)   Grondin v. Curi, 262 Conn. 637, 649, 817 A.2d 61 (2003) . "[T]he process of statutory interpretation involves a reasoned search for the intention of the legislature.  ... In other words, we seek to determine, in a reasoned manner, the meaning of the statutory language as applied to the facts of [the] case, including the question of whether the language actually does apply.  In seeking to determine that meaning, we look to the words of the statute itself, to the legislative history and circumstances surrounding its enactment, to the legislative policy it was designed to implement, and to its relationship to existing legislation and common law principles governing the same general subject matter."  [FN12]   *14 Internal quotation marks omitted.)   Commissioner of Social Services v. Smith, 265 Conn. 723, 734, 830 A.2d 228 (2003) .

FN12. With regard to this purposive approach to statutory interpretation, our legislature recently has enacted Public Acts 2003, No. 03-154, § 1 (P.A. 03-154), which provides:  "The meaning of a statute shall, in the first instance, be ascertained from the text of the statute itself and its relationship to other statutes.  If, after examining such text and considering such relationship, the meaning of such text is plain and unambiguous and does not yield absurd or unworkable results, extratextual evidence of the meaning of the statute shall not be considered."  This case does not implicate P.A. 03-154.  We note that, in the present case, the relevant statutory text and the relationship of that text to other statutes is not "plain and unambiguous ...." P.A. 03- 154.  Accordingly, our analysis is not circumscribed to an examination of text alone, but rather properly may consider the various other sources helpful in the ascertainment of statutory meaning.

We begin our analysis of this claim by reviewing the language of the relevant sections of chapter 132 of the General Statutes.  The chapter begins with General Statutes § 8-186 , [FN13] which is the legislative **513 declaration of policy recognizing that the state's "economic welfare" is dependent on the "growth of industry and business ...." Section 8-186 provides, inter alia, that "permitting and assisting municipalities to acquire and improve unified land and water areas and to acquire and improve or demolish vacated commercial plants for industrial and business purposes ... are public uses and purposes for which public moneys may be expended;  and that the necessity in the public interest for the provisions of this chapter is hereby declared as a matter of legislative determination."  [FN14]  (Emphasis *15 added.)   General Statutes § 8-187  [FN15] is the chapter's definitions section, providing most significantly that " 'real property' means land, subterranean or subsurface rights, structures, any and all easements, air rights and franchises and every estate, right or interest therein ...." (Emphasis added.)   General Statutes § 8-187(9) .   General Statutes § 8- 189  [FN16] describes the requirements **514 *16 that the development agency must follow in preparing the mandatory project plan, which include providing "a plan for relocating project-area occupants ...." General Statutes § 8-189(f) .   General Statutes § 8-193  [FN17] permits the development agency to acquire real property *17 within the project area, including through the exercise of the eminent domain power as authorized by the city council.   General Statutes § 8-198  [FN18] provides for the promulgation of regulations to carry out the provisions of chapter 132. Finally, General Statutes § 8-199  [FN19] provides that all actions taken **515 by the development agency are taken in the name of the municipality.

FN13. General Statutes § 8-186 provides:  "It is found and declared that the economic welfare of the state depends upon the continued growth of industry and business within the state;  that the acquisition and improvement of unified land and water areas and vacated commercial plants to meet the needs of industry and business should be in accordance with local, regional and state planning objectives;  that such acquisition and improvement often cannot be accomplished through the ordinary operations of private enterprise at competitive rates of progress and economies of cost; that permitting and assisting municipalities to acquire and improve unified land and water areas and to acquire and improve or demolish vacated commercial plants for industrial and business purposes and, in distressed municipalities, to lend funds to businesses and industries within a project area in accordance with such planning objectives are public uses and purposes for which public moneys may be expended;  and that the necessity in the public interest for the provisions of this chapter is hereby declared as a matter of legislative determination."

FN14. Chapter 132 of the General Statutes originally had referred only to "unified land areas."  Public Acts 1967, No. 760, § 1 . The legislature amended it to include the present term "unified land and water areas" in 1975.  Public Acts 1975, No. 75-480, § 1 .

FN15. General Statutes § 8-187 provides:  "As used in this chapter, (1) 'municipality' means a town, city, consolidated town and city or consolidated town and borough;  (2) 'legislative body' means (A) the board of selectmen in a town that does not have a charter, special act or home rule ordinance relating to its government or (B) the council, board of aldermen, representative town meeting, board of selectmen or other elected legislative body described in a charter, special act or home rule ordinance relating to government in a city, consolidated town and city, consolidated town and borough or a town having a charter, special act, consolidation ordinance or home rule ordinance relating to its government;  (3) 'development agency' means the agency designated by a municipality under section 8-188 through which the municipality may exercise the powers granted under this chapter;   (4) 'development project' means a project conducted by a municipality for the assembly, improvement and disposition of land or buildings or both to be used principally for industrial or business purposes and includes vacated commercial plants;  (5) 'vacated commercial plants' means buildings formerly used principally for business or industrial purposes of which more than fifty per cent of the usable floor space is, or which it is anticipated, within eighteen months, shall be, unused or substantially underutilized;  (6) 'project area' means the area within which the development project is located;  (7) 'commissioner' means the Commissioner of Economic and Community Development;  (8) 'planning commission' means the planning and zoning commission designated pursuant to section 8-4a or the planning commission created pursuant to section 8-19;   (9) 'real property' means land, subterranean or subsurface rights, structures, any and all easements, air rights and franchises and every estate, right or interest therein;  and (10) 'business purpose' includes, but is not limited to, any commercial, financial or retail enterprise and includes any enterprise which promotes tourism and any property that produces income."  (Emphasis added.)

FN16. General Statutes § 8-189 provides:  "The development agency may initiate a development project by preparing a project plan therefor in accordance with regulations of the commissioner.  The project plan shall include:  (a) A legal description of the land within the project area;  (b) a description of the present condition and uses of such land or building; (c) a description of the types and locations of land uses or building uses proposed for the project area;  (d) a description of the types and locations of present and proposed streets, sidewalks and sanitary, utility and other facilities and the types and locations of other proposed site improvements;  (e) statements of the present and proposed zoning classification and subdivision status of the project area and the areas adjacent to the project area;  (f) a plan for relocating project-area occupants;  (g) a financing plan;  (h) an administrative plan;  (i) a marketability and proposed land-use study or building use study if required by the commissioner;  (j) appraisal reports and title searches;  (k) a statement of the number of jobs which the development agency anticipates would be created by the project and the number and types of existing housing units in the municipality in which the project would be located, and in contiguous municipalities, which would be available to employees filling such jobs;  and ( l ) findings that the land and buildings within the project area will be used principally for industrial or business purposes;  that the plan is in accordance with the plan of development for the municipality adopted by its planning commission and the plan of development of the regional planning agency, if any, for the region within which the municipality is located;  that the plan is not inimical to any state-wide planning program objectives of the state or state agencies as coordinated by the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management;  that the project will contribute to the economic welfare of the municipality and the state;  and that to carry out and administer the project, public action under this chapter is required.  Any plan which has been prepared by a redevelopment agency under chapter 130 may be submitted by the development agency to the legislative body and to the commissioner in lieu of a plan initiated and prepared in accordance with this section, provided all other requirements of this chapter for obtaining the approval of the commissioner of the project plan are satisfied."  (Emphasis added.)

FN17. General Statutes § 8-193 provides:  "(a) After approval of the development plan as provided in this chapter, the development agency may proceed by purchase, lease, exchange or gift with the acquisition or rental of real property within the project area and real property and interests therein for rights-of-way and other easements to and from the project area.   The development agency may, with the approval of the legislative body, and in the name of the municipality, acquire by eminent domain real property located within the project area and real property and interests therein for rights-of-way and other easements to and from the project area, in the same manner that a redevelopment agency may acquire real property under sections 8-128 to 8-133, inclusive, as if said sections specifically applied to development agencies.  The development agency may, with the approval of the legislative body and, of the commissioner if any grants were made by the state under section 8-190 or 8-195 for such development project, and in the name of such municipality, transfer by sale or lease at fair market value or fair rental value, as the case may be, the whole or any part of the real property in the project area to any person, in accordance with the project plan and such disposition plans as may have been determined by the commissioner.

"(b) A development agency shall have all the powers necessary or convenient to undertake and carry out development plans and development projects, including the power to clear, demolish, repair, rehabilitate, operate, or insure real property while it is in its possession, to make site improvements essential to the preparation of land for its use in accordance with the development plan, to install, construct or reconstruct streets, utilities and other improvements necessary for carrying out the objectives of the development project, and, in distressed municipalities, as defined in section 32-9p, to lend funds to businesses and industries in a manner approved by the commissioner."  (Emphasis added.)

FN18. General Statutes § 8-198 provides:  "The commissioner is authorized to make and enforce reasonable regulations to carry out the provisions of this chapter."

FN19. General Statutes § 8-199 provides:  "Any development agency shall exercise its powers in the name of the municipality, and all bonds issued pursuant to this chapter shall be issued in the name of the municipality and title to land taken or acquired pursuant to a development plan shall be solely in the name of the municipality."

The statutory term whose meaning is in dispute is "unified land and water areas";   General Statutes § 8-186 ;  a phrase that is not defined expressly in any section of chapter 132 of the General Statutes.  Thus, in construing the term, we look to its commonly approved usage, an inquiry that often is enhanced by the examination of dictionary definitions.  See, e.g., Hasselt v. Lufthansa German Airlines, 262 Conn. 416, 425, 815 A.2d 94 (2003) (utilizing Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary definition to construe statutory term "including");  see also General Statutes § 1-1(a) .  Merriam-Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines "unified" as the *18 adjective form of "unify," which means "make into a coherent group or whole ...." Accordingly, we conclude that, as used in § 8-186 of chapter 132, a "unified land and water [area]" is one that exists because of the combination of separate land parcels into a unitary development scheme, [FN20] a definition that undisputedly fits the Fort Trumbull development plan in the present case.  This definition, however, does not resolve the issue of whether a unified land and water area under chapter 132 is limited to vacant land.  Accordingly, we must continue our analysis by examining the term in the context of both the language of the chapter as a whole, and the legislative history.

FN20. This definition is not inconsistent with the legislative history of Public Acts 1967, No. 760, which reveals that the act was intended to enable and encourage industrial development in districts that are comprised of more than one municipality.  Representative William S. Mayer, sponsor of the legislation, stated:  "This particular bill will be of interest to towns interested in industrial development not only within their own confines but within multi-town districts.  A section of this particular act provides that towns can get together to develop industrial land on contiguous borders."  12 H.R. Proc., Pt. 10, 1967 Sess., pp. 4917- 18.

We conclude that the term "unified land and water areas" in § 8-186 is not limited to vacant land.  The language and legislative history of chapter 132 of the General Statutes in its entirety are replete with references that compel this conclusion.  For example, § 8-187(9) , the chapter's definition of " 'real property,' " includes "structures" expressly within its ambit.  See footnote 15 of this opinion.  Moreover, the legislative history indicates that § 8-187(9) was enacted as Public Acts 1980, No. 80-18, to clarify the meanings of the terms "land" and "real property" as used in chapter 132, and to make them consistent with the definitions provided in chapter 130 of the General Statutes, the urban renewal statutes. [FN21]  See 23 H.R. Proc., Pt. 2, 1980 Sess., p. 453, remarks *19 of Representative Joseph J. Farricielli ("This bill would attempt to remove confusing language defining land and the real property in Chapter 132 as compared to Chapter 130 of the General Statutes.  It would clarify the meaning of real property as applied to state assisted municipal industrial development rights.");  see also 23 S. Proc., Pt. 3, 1980 Sess., pp. 660-61, remarks of Senator Sanford Cloud, Jr. (same).  Even more significantly, § 8-193(a) , which provides authorization for the acquisition of real property by eminent domain;  see footnote 17 of this opinion;  does not include or exclude any specific **516 type of real property, leaving us only to conclude that the power applies to " 'real property,' " as broadly defined in § 8-187(9) .

FN21. Indeed, § 8-187(9) is identical to the definition of " '[r]eal property' " found in chapter 130 of the General Statutes, the urban renewal chapter.  See General Statutes § 8-125(f) .

Another probative definition is that of " 'development project,' " which is defined as "a project conducted by a municipality for the assembly, improvement and disposition of land or buildings or both to be used principally for industrial or business purposes and includes vacated commercial plants ...." (Emphasis added.) General Statutes § 8-187(4) .  This definition is significant because the use of the word "includes" in the phrase "includes vacated commercial plants" indicates firmly that vacated commercial plants are not the only structures contemplated by the legislature as potentially present in a development area.  See Hasselt v. Lufthansa German Airlines, supra, 262 Conn. at 424-25, 815 A.2d 94 (Court construed General Statutes § 31-307a [c] , which "imposes liability on the [second injury] fund to reimburse employers for adjustments, including lump-sum payments .... Construing the word including according to its ordinary usage, however, must mean that the fund is required as well to reimburse employers for something other than those retroactive [cost of living adjustments] paid in a lump sum."  [Citation omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.] ).

*20 Moreover, § 8-189 , which describes the requirements that the development agency must follow in preparing the required project plan, requires the agency to provide "a plan for relocating project-area occupants ...." General Statutes § 8-189(f) ;  see footnote 16 of this opinion.  This is a requirement that, by definition, contradicts the plaintiffs' argument that "unified land and water areas" is limited to vacant land;  it is axiomatic that vacant land has no occupants to relocate.

Furthermore, the commissioner's regulations, promulgated pursuant to   § 8-198 , support the conclusion that "unified land and water areas" under chapter 132 of the General Statutes include occupied, and indeed, residential, land.   Section 8-198-10 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies ,  [FN22] the regulation providing *21 for the determination of funding for development grants, provides that "[t]he amount of funds available to a municipality for development grants is based on a percentage of the net project cost.  The net project **517 cost is the total project cost less the estimated income from the project."   Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 8-198- 10(a) .  We note that one factor that may be calculated into project cost is relocation expenses;   Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 8-198-10(a)(7) ;  and that another factor that may be calculated into project income is income gained from "the temporary use of land, residences or businesses prior to their dispositions ...." Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 8-198-10(b)(2) .  These regulations are particularly probative in light of the well established proposition that "unless [administrative regulations] are shown to be inconsistent with the authorizing statute, they have the force and effect of a statute."  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)   Andersen Consulting, LLP v. Gavin, 255 Conn. 498, 520 n. 15, 767 A.2d 692 (2001) .  We particularly are persuaded by the fact that the commissioner responsible for the implementation of chapter 132 has implemented regulations pursuant to that chapter that consider expressly residences, and their relocation, as factors for calculating the funding of development grants.  Cf. MacDermid, Inc. v. Dept. of Environmental Protection, 257 Conn. 128, 138, 778 A.2d 7 (2001) ("it is the well established practice of this court to accord great deference to the construction given [a] statute by the agency charged with its enforcement" [internal quotation marks omitted] ).

FN22. Section 8-198-10 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies provides in relevant part:  "(a) The amount of funds available to a municipality for development grants is based on a percentage of the net project cost.  The net project cost is the total project cost less the estimated income from the project.  Eligible project costs include:

"(1) real estate acquisition and disposition financing for a period; "(2) site clearance;

"(3) site development;

"(4) planning and engineering;

"(5) administration of the project;

"(6) interest costs for temporary and definitive financing for a period not to exceed five years on a principal amount not to exceed the required matching local share;  and

"(7) relocation.

"The purchase of vehicles and interim and final audits are not eligible costs.  Interim audits are required every two years through the duration of the development project.

"(b) The project income includes monies or the value of goods and services received from:

"(1) the sale or lease of land;

"(2) the temporary use of land, residences or businesses prior to their dispositions;

"(3) the sale or lease of sand, gravel, or other earthen materials;

"(4) the sale or lease of buildings, machinery, equipment or other materials of value, occupying land areas within the project area;

"(5) other state grants;

"(6) federal capital grants approved for a non-distressed municipality; and

"(7) Interest income realized from the investment of project monies...." (Emphasis added.)

The plaintiffs claim that the text and legislative history of chapter 132 of the General Statutes indicate that unified land and water areas do not include land already developed with business and residences.  Specifically, they contend that a construction of "unified land and *22 water areas" that includes developed or occupied land renders the subsequent addition of "vacated commercial plants" superfluous.  They also contend that the legislative genealogy and history indicates that the legislature did not intend the term "unified land and water areas" to include occupied land because references within the chapter pertinent to occupied land, such as those of demolition and rehabilitation, were added only after the vacated commercial plant provision was enacted in 1972.  Finally, the plaintiffs contend that construing "unified land and water areas" to include occupied land would be excessively broad in light of the strict construction given to eminent domain statutes.  We disagree with these contentions, and address each in turn.

We first conclude that construing "unified land and water areas" as including occupied land does not render the "vacated commercial plants" provision of § 8-186 superfluous.  Indeed, the legislative history indicates that, in enacting chapter 132 of the General Statutes, the legislature envisioned two different types of economic development plans, one aimed at developing unified land areas, or combinations of multiple parcels of land, and the other intended to revitalize underutilized commercial buildings.  In introducing the bill that was enacted as Public Acts 1972, No. 87, which added the "vacant commercial plant" language to chapter 132, Senator Lawrence J. DeNardis stated that "this Bill will allow municipalities through their development agencies, to acquire [improve] and rehabilitate vacant commercial plants.  At present, municipalities can acquire and improve unified land areas as it is worded in the present Statutes.  They also have the power to clear, repair, operate and insure real property.  This Bill would add the additional power of rehabilitation to the list and furthermore, it would add vacated commercial plants to the areas that can be dealt with or the matters *23 that could be dealt with.... [T]he intent of this Bill is to improve the economic climate of the State by furthering industry and thereby creating jobs."  (Emphasis added.)  15 S. Proc., Pt. 2, 1972 Sess., p. **518 785.  [FN23]  Put differently, chapter 132 does not require that a vacated commercial plant be located within a unified land and water area;  they merely present two different opportunities for economic development.  Accordingly, we conclude that a construction of the term "unified land and water areas" in § 8-186 that includes developed or occupied land does not render the 1972 addition of "vacated commercial plants" superfluous.

FN23. See also 15 H.R. Proc., Pt. 4, 1972 Sess., p. 1439, remarks of Representative Victor Tudan ("[T]his Bill will allow municipalities through development agencies to acquire, improve and rehabilitate vacated commercial properties.   At present municipalities can acquire and improve unified land areas only.  They also have the power to clear, repair, operate and insure real property.  This Bill adds rehabilitate to this list."  [Emphasis added.] ).

We also reject the plaintiffs' contention that the legislative genealogy of   § 8-186 indicates that the legislature did not intend "unified land and water areas" to include occupied land because references within chapter 132 of the General Statutes pertinent to occupied land, such as those to demolition and rehabilitation, were added only after the vacated commercial plant provision was enacted in 1972.  Our reading of the legislative history, and particularly the original 1967 Public Act, contradicts the plaintiffs' construction of the chapter.  The plaintiffs note correctly that "rehabilitate" was not added to the development agency's powers under § 8-193(b) until 1972;  see Public Acts 1972, No. 87, § 3;  and that the power to "demolish" vacated commercial plants was not added until 1974;  see Public Acts 1974, No. 74-184, § 6(b);  [FN24]  both of which occurred after *24 vacated commercial plants were added to the scope of the chapter.  Our reading, however, of the original 1967 Public Act, which only provided for the development of unified land and water areas, reveals that the legislature contemplated unified land and water areas as including occupied land.  Indeed, § 8-189(f) , which requires the development agency to submit "a plan for relocating project-area occupants," was included in the 1967 act. [FN25] See Public Acts 1967, No. 760, § 4(f).  Accordingly, we disagree with the plaintiffs' contention that the legislative history of § 8-186 necessarily indicates that the legislature intended "unified land and water areas" to be limited to vacant land.

FN24. Public Act 74-184, § 1 , also amended § 8-186 , to declare expressly that it is a public use and purpose " to acquire and improve or demolish vacated commercial plants for industrial or business purposes ...." (Emphasis added.)

FN25. Accordingly, we disagree with the plaintiffs' contention that the requirement of a relocation plan refers to the chapter's definition of vacated commercial plant, which contemplates partial occupation.  See General Statutes § 8-187(5) (" 'vacated commercial plants' means buildings formerly used principally for business or industrial purposes of which more than fifty per cent of the usable floor space is, or which it is anticipated, within eighteen months, shall be, unused or substantially underutilized").

[6] [7] We next address the plaintiffs' contention that construing  "unified land and water areas" to include occupied land would be excessively broad in light of the strict construction applied to eminent domain statutes. We are mindful of the well established proposition that "[t]he authority to condemn [is to] be strictly construed in favor of the owner of the property taken and against the condemnor ...." State v. McCook, 109 Conn. 621, 630, 147 A. 126 (1929) .  We also note, however, that "[t]he statute ... should be enforced in such a way as to effectuate the purpose for which it was enacted."  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)   Pequonnock Yacht Club, Inc. v. Bridgeport, 259 Conn. 592, 601-602, 790 A.2d 1178 (2002) .  We conclude that construing the ambiguous term "unified **519 land and water areas" in § 8- 186 as including occupied land is not impermissibly broad;  indeed, the language of other provisions in chapter 132 of the General Statutes compels this conclusion, *25 and our review of the legislative history reveals nothing to contradict it.  Moreover, a construction limiting the application of the unified land and water areas provisions of chapter 132 to vacant land would undercut severely the chapter's declared purpose of promoting economic development, particularly as the state's stock of vacant land diminishes.  This construction largely would limit the applicability of chapter 132 in urban and suburban areas to vacated commercial plants standing alone;  the presence of a structure in the project area that does not meet the definition of vacated commercial plant would disrupt the entire economic development plan because it would need to be built around.  This would make the parcels unattractive for investment by developers, and would, therefore, thwart the declared purpose of chapter 132.  See General Statutes § 8-186 .  Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court properly construed the term "unified land and water areas" in § 8-186 of chapter 132 as not excluding developed or occupied land.

We next address the principal issue in this appeal, which is the plaintiffs' claim that the trial court improperly concluded that the use of eminent domain for economic development does not violate the public use clauses of the state and federal constitutions.  Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that:  (1) economic development as contemplated in chapter 132 of the General Statutes is not a public use under the state and federal constitutions;  (2) even if economic development is a public use, the condemnations in the present case do not promote sufficient public benefit to pass constitutional muster;  and (3) the condemnation of parcels 3 *26 and 4A lack a reasonable assurance of future public use because private parties retain control over the parcels' use.  We address each contention in turn.

[8] The plaintiffs' first contention is that the trial court improperly concluded that economic development under chapter 132 of the General Statutes, namely, the development plan in the present case, is a public purpose that satisfies the public use clauses of article first, § 11, of the Connecticut constitution, [FN26] and the fifth amendment to the United States constitution. [FN27]  Specifically, they claim that the condemnation of property for economic development by private parties is inconsistent with this court's prior public use decisions **520 because:  (1) the new owner will not provide a public service or utility;  and (2) the condemnation will not remove blight conditions that are, in and of themselves, harmful to the public.  In response, the defendants contend that by concluding that economic development is by itself a public use justifying the exercise of the eminent domain power, the trial court properly deferred to state and municipal legislative determinations.  We conclude that economic development projects created and implemented pursuant to chapter 132 that have the public economic benefits of creating new jobs, increasing tax *27 and other revenues, and contributing to urban revitalization, satisfy the public use clauses of the state and federal constitutions. [FN28]

FN26. Article first, § 11, of the constitution of Connecticut provides:  "The property of no person shall be taken for public use, without just compensation therefor."

FN27. The fifth amendment to the United States constitution provides in relevant part:  "No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;   nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. "  (Emphasis added.)  The fifth amendment's public use clause has been made applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution.  See, e.g., Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229, 231, 104 S.Ct. 2321, 81 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984) .

FN28. We note that, in Bugryn v. Bristol, 63 Conn.App. 98, 103-04, 774 A.2d 1042, cert. denied, 256 Conn. 927, 776 A.2d 1143, cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1019, 122 S.Ct. 544, 151 L.Ed.2d 422 (2001) , the Appellate Court rejected a factual challenge to the trial court's finding that the plaintiffs' land was not condemned for the purpose of benefiting and retaining a private manufacturer.  The Appellate Court's decision in Bugryn, however, is of limited value in resolving the particular issue in the present case, because the parties in that case did not dispute the proposition that the development of an industrial park is a public use. Id., at 104, 774 A.2d 1042 .  The court in that case did note that, even if the industrial park plan did benefit the manufacturer, the public use of industrial park development was not disputed, and "[w]here the public use which justifies the taking of the area in the first instance exists, an element over which there is no controversy in the present case, that same public purpose continues even though the property is later transferred to private persons."  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Id.; Broadriver, Inc. v. Stamford, 158 Conn. 522, 533-34, 265 A.2d 75 (1969) , cert. denied, 398 U.S. 938, 90 S.Ct. 1841, 26 L.Ed.2d 270 (1970) .

We begin by setting forth the applicable statutory framework.  The legislative determination at issue in the present case is provided by § 8-186 , which provides that as a matter of legislative finding and declaration, " that the economic welfare of the state depends upon the continued growth of industry and business within the state;  that the acquisition and improvement of unified land and water areas and vacated commercial plants to meet the needs of industry and business should be in accordance with local, regional and state planning objectives;  that such acquisition and improvement often cannot be accomplished through the ordinary operations of private enterprise at competitive rates of progress and economies of cost;   that permitting and assisting municipalities to acquire and improve unified land and water areas and to acquire and improve or demolish vacated commercial plants for industrial and business purposes ... are public uses and purposes for which public moneys may be expended;  and that the necessity in the public interest for the provisions *28 of this chapter is hereby declared as a matter of legislative determination. "  (Emphasis added.)

The trial court concluded that this language did not violate the public use clauses of either the state or the federal constitutions.  In so concluding, the trial court relied on decisions from this court and the United States Supreme Court, but especially Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229, 239-40, 104 S.Ct. 2321, 81 L.Ed.2d 186 (1984) , Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 31-32, 75 S.Ct. 98, 99 L.Ed. 27 (1954) , Katz v. Brandon, 156 Conn. 521, 532-34, 245 A.2d 579 (1968) , Gohld Realty Co. v. Hartford, 141 Conn. 135, 141-43, 104 A.2d 365 (1954) , and Olmstead v. Camp, 33 Conn. 532, 546 (1866) .  After reviewing the authorities, the trial court concluded that both this court and the United States Supreme Court consistently have taken a broad, purposive view of the concept of public use, and accordingly have taken a **521 deferential approach to legislative pronouncements of public use.  The trial court, however, also emphasized that the public use question is ultimately a judicial inquiry.  Ultimately, the trial court concluded that the purpose of chapter 132 of the General Statutes, as expressed in § 8-186 ; see footnote 13 of this opinion;  was an appropriate public use that passed muster under both state and federal constitutions, stating that "[e]conomic growth and its encouragement, especially in 'distressed municipalities' is a valid public use because it obviously confers a benefit to all members of the public."  Accordingly, the trial court concluded that "the language of chapter 132 authorizing the use of eminent domain power for the purpose of accomplishing economic development in designative project areas [is not] violative of the federal or state eminent domain clauses of their respective constitutions."

[9] [10] [11] We note that the trial court approached the plaintiffs' general claim about whether economic development is *29 a constitutional public use in the context of a facial attack on the provisions of chapter 132 of the General Statutes that authorize the use of eminent domain. Although the plaintiffs do not argue expressly that these statutory provisions are unconstitutional, we will address this particular claim as a facial attack on the constitutionality of chapter 132 inasmuch as it authorizes the use of eminent domain for private economic development. Accordingly, "we proceed from the well recognized jurisprudential principle that [t]he party attacking a validly enacted statute ... bears the heavy burden of proving its unconstitutionality beyond a reasonable doubt and we indulge in every presumption in favor of the statute's constitutionality.... The burden of proving unconstitutionality is especially heavy when, as at this juncture, a statute is challenged as being unconstitutional on its face."  (Citation omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)   State v. Ball, 260 Conn. 275, 280-81, 796 A.2d 542 (2002) .

Moreover, in light of the somewhat confusing constitutional posture of their principal and reply briefs, [FN29] we *30 also take the opportunity to clarify the scope of our review of the plaintiffs' constitutional claims in the present case.  Inasmuch as the relevant public use language of the state and federal constitutions is virtually identical;  see footnotes 26 and 27 of this opinion;  the plaintiffs have not stated expressly that the Connecticut constitution offers them greater protection, and their **522 claim presents an issue of first impression for this court, we will address simultaneously their federal and state claims.  See Donahue v. Southington, 259 Conn. 783, 794 n. 7, 792 A.2d 76 (2002) ("If a party does not provide an independent analysis asserting the existence of greater protection under the state constitutional provision than its federal counterpart ... we will not of our own initiative address that question.... Accordingly, the federal equal protection standard is considered prevailing for the purposes of our review of both the state and federal equal protection claims in this case."  [Internal quotation marks omitted.] ).

FN29. The plaintiffs, in seeking invalidation of the eminent domain provisions of chapter 132 of the General Statutes under the public use clauses of the federal and state constitutions, provide a single, unitary analysis that does not assert that the state constitution's public use clause offers them greater protection than the federal constitution's public use clause.  Their approach is confusing to us because their principal brief otherwise is replete with citations to cases such as Gohld Realty Co. v. Hartford, supra, 141 Conn. 135, 104 A.2d 365, Southwestern Illinois Development Authority v. National City Environmental, LLC, 199 Ill.2d 225, 240-41, 263 Ill.Dec. 241, 768 N.E.2d 1, cert. denied, 537 U.S. 880, 123 S.Ct. 88, 154 L.Ed.2d 135 (2002) , and Poletown Neighborhood Council v. Detroit, 410 Mich. 616, 633-35, 304 N.W.2d 455 (1981) , which typically would support the separate state constitutional analysis required as a threshold matter for review by well established Connecticut precedent.  See, e.g., State v. DeJesus, 260 Conn. 466, 480 n. 11, 797 A.2d 1101 (2002) (separate state analysis required);   State v. Geisler, 222 Conn. 672, 684-85, 610 A.2d 1225 (1992) (factors governing construction of state constitution enumerated). Moreover, the plaintiffs' principal brief, does not contain a discussion of any relevant federal precedent, such as Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, supra, 467 U.S. 229, 104 S.Ct. 2321, 81 L.Ed.2d 186 .  We do note, however, that they do cite three significant federal cases in their reply brief.

We now turn to the substance of the plaintiffs' claims.  This court long has taken a flexible approach to construction of the Connecticut public use clause.  Indeed, our analysis begins in 1866, when this court, in Olmstead v. Camp, supra, 33 Conn. 532, first addressed the constitutional concept of public use.  In Olmstead, the owner of a water powered mill used for the grinding of grain petitioned the court, pursuant to the flowage act, for permission to make improvements to the pond and dam that powered his mill. Id. These alterations necessarily would have resulted in flooding his neighbor's land, and the neighbor had refused to accept compensation from the mill owner for the privilege of flooding his land. [FN30]  Id., at 532- 33.

FN30. A committee appointed pursuant to the flowage act recommended that the improvement be made, in furtherance of the public use. Olmstead v. Camp, supra, 33 Conn. at 534 .  With respect to public use, the trial court found that the mill operated generally for the public benefit in a farming community where people relied, but not exclusively, on it and other merchants to furnish food for people and animals.   Id., at 536.  The court also found that the mill owner had no legal obligation to allow the public access to the mill, or to do milling for the public himself.   Id., at 537.  The trial court then reserved for this court the question of whether allowing the improvements to the mill would be a public use.  Id.

[12] *31 This court concluded that the mill owner should be permitted to flood his neighbor's land.  Id., at 552.  In interpreting Connecticut's public use clause, the court rejected a strict construction that "the term 'public use' means possession, occupation, direct enjoyment, by the public."  Id., at 546.  Instead, it concluded that "such a limitation of the intent of this important clause would be entirely different from its accepted interpretation, and would prove as unfortunate as novel.  One of the most common meanings of the word 'use' as defined by [Webster's Dictionary], is 'usefulness, utility, advantage, productive of benefit.'   'Public use' may therefore well mean public usefulness, utility or advantage, or what is productive of general benefit;  so that any appropriating of private property by the state under its right of eminent domain for purposes of great advantage to the community, is a taking for public use.  Such, it is believed, is the construction which has uniformly been put upon the language by courts, legislatures and legal authorities."  [FN31]  (Emphasis added.)  Id.

FN31. Even more tellingly, the court in Olmstead stated further: "In none of the cases to which we have referred does the public as an active agent take and hold and occupy the property in actual possession. The term 'public use' is synonymous with public benefit or advantage.  It is equivalent to the language, so familiar in our statute in relation to highways, 'of common convenience and necessity.'

"If there were any doubt on the subject on first principles, we understand it to be the settled law of the country that the flowing of land for the purposes of mills and manufactories, in view of its effect upon the community, is to be considered as a taking it for public use.  It would be difficult to conceive a greater public benefit than garnering up the waste waters of innumerable streams and rivers and ponds and lakes, and compelling them with a gigantic energy to turn machinery and drive mills, and thereby build up cities and villages, and extend the business, the wealth, the population and the prosperity of the state.  It is obvious that those sections of the country which afford the greatest facilities for the business of manufacturing and the mechanic arts, must become the workshops and warehouses of other vast regions not possessing these advantages;  and must receive in exchange for the results of their industry and skill an abundant return of the rich products of the earth, including the precious metals.   It is of incalculable importance to this state to keep pace with others in the progress of improvements, and to render to its citizens the fullest opportunity for success in an industrial competition. "  (Emphasis added.)   Olmstead v. Camp, supra, 33 Conn. at 550-51 .

**523 [13] *32 Moreover, the court in Olmstead laid the foundation for our deferential approach to legislative declarations of public use, stating that "[t]he question is asked with great pertinence and propriety, what then is the limit of the legislative power under the clause which we have been considering, and what is the exact line between public and private uses?  Our reply is that which has heretofore been quoted.  From the nature of the case there can be no precise line.   The power requires a degree of elasticity to be capable of meeting new conditions and improvements and the ever increasing necessities of society.  The sole dependence must be on the presumed wisdom of the sovereign authority, supervised, and in cases of gross error or extreme wrong, controlled, by the dispassionate judgment of the courts."  (Emphasis added.)  Id., at 551;  accord New York, N.H. & H.R. Co. v. Offield, 77 Conn. 417, 421, 59 A. 510 (1904) (in taking for railroad improvements, court held "[t]hat the uses to be furthered are public, is a question the decision of which by the legislative department, while not absolutely conclusive upon the judicial department ... is entitled to very great weight").

This court has continued to afford the public use clause a broad construction, and repeatedly has embraced the purposive formulation first articulated in Olmstead v. Camp, supra, 33 Conn. at 546 . [FN32]  In *33 Gohld  Realty Co. v. Hartford, supra, 141 Conn. at 139, 104 A.2d 365, the owner of commercial real estate challenged the constitutionality of the eminent domain provisions of the redevelopment act, under which land in blighted urban areas could be taken, cleared and sold or leased to redevelopers.  The property owner contended that use of eminent domain in this manner violated the public use clause of the state constitution.   Id., at 141, 104 A.2d 365 .  Utilizing the purposive definition of public use from Olmstead v. Camp, supra, 33 Conn. at 546, **524 this court relied on express legislative findings about the deleterious effects of urban blight, and concluded that "there can be no doubt that the elimination of such substandard, insanitary, deteriorated, slum or blighted areas ... is for the public welfare.  Private property taken for the purpose of eradicating the conditions which obtain in such areas is taken for a public use."   Gohld Realty Co. v. Hartford, supra, at 143, 104 A.2d 365 .  Moreover, with respect to the provisions of the act allowing the taken land to be sold or leased to private developers, the court concluded that "[i]f the public use which justifies the exercise of eminent domain in the first instance is the use of the property for purposes other than slums, that same public use continues after the property is transferred to private persons.  The public purposes for which the land was taken are still being accomplished." (Emphasis added.)   Id., at 143-44, 104 A.2d 365 .

FN32. Prior to the urban renewal cases, we note that this court has construed the phrase "public purpose," in the context of spending public moneys, as synonymous with the term "public use."  In Barnes v. New Haven, 140 Conn. 8, 12-14, 98 A.2d 523 (1953) , a taxpayer challenged the validity of an act creating a parking authority as lacking a public purpose under the emoluments clause, article first, § 1, of the Connecticut constitution.  This court upheld the act as having the legitimate public purpose of addressing severe traffic problems, a situation that "calls for an appropriate exercise of the police power of the state operating through the city as one of its municipalities."  Id., at 14, 98 A.2d 523 . The court noted that "[w]hether the act does provide for a legitimate public purpose in the constitutional sense involves the question whether it primarily serves, in a reasonable manner, to promote the public welfare.... If it does, that an incidental financial benefit may result to certain individuals as distinguished from the public at large does not deprive it of its legitimate public purpose."  (Citations omitted.)   Id., at 14-15, 98 A.2d 523 .

Although Barnes is a spending case, and not a taking case, it is significant in our resolution of the present case.  Indeed, the court in Barnes expressly used the terms "public use" and "public purpose" in an interchangeable manner, a definition that we later adopted in Katz v. Brandon, supra, 156 Conn. at 532-33, 245 A.2d 579, a redevelopment taking case.

*34 Gohld Realty Co. was followed by Katz v. Brandon, supra, 156 Conn. 521, 245 A.2d 579 . [FN33]  In Katz, a property owner brought an action to determine the validity of the taking of his home pursuant to a redevelopment plan in Hartford.   Id., at 523, 245 A.2d 579 .  A manufacturing corporation had a plant with an employee parking lot near the plaintiff's home.   Id., at 525, 245 A.2d 579 .  The state had condemned this parking lot for the construction of an interstate highway.  Id. The corporation had offered to build a parking garage in the area, should the city approve a redevelopment plan in the area.   Id., at 525-26, 245 A.2d 579 . Subsequently, the redevelopment agency approved a redevelopment plan in the area, which included the plaintiff's land.   Id., at 525, 245 A.2d 579 .  The city then met with the corporation and other local manufacturers to discuss the redevelopment area, which was found by the city and the agency to be blighted and unsafe.   Id., at 526-27, 245 A.2d 579 .  The city did not enter into an agreement with the corporation to purchase or lease any of the land;  the city was of the opinion that the project was necessary with or without the corporation's participation.   Id., at 527-28, 245 A.2d 579 .  Subsequently, the city approved the redevelopment project and acquired title to all properties in the area by purchase or eminent domain, including those of the plaintiff.   Id., at 529-31, 245 A.2d 579 .  The plaintiff brought an action, and contended that the takings were invalid because they were taken for the private purpose of inducing the corporation to remain in Hartford by providing a parking lot for its employees, rather than for a public purpose.   Id., at 531, 245 A.2d 579 .

FN33. For the sake of clarity, we note that this court's opinion in Katz v. Brandon, supra, 156 Conn. at 532-34, 245 A.2d 579, does not state whether its public use analysis is based specifically on either or both of the federal and state constitutions.

[14] [15] This court, relying on Gohld Realty Co. v. Hartford, supra, 141 Conn. at 143, 104 A.2d 365, rejected the plaintiff's argument, and emphasized that the public use was the clearing of the blighted land.   *35 Katz v. Brandon, supra, 156 Conn. at  534, 245 A.2d 579 .  Indeed, the court in Katz further broadened our approach to public use, citing Barnes v. New Haven, 140 Conn. 8, 15-16, 98 A.2d 523 (1953) , a public spending case.  See footnote 32 of this opinion.  Indeed, this court stated in Katz that " [a] public use defies absolute definition, for it changes with varying conditions of society, new appliances in the sciences, changing conceptions of the scope and functions of government, and other differing circumstances brought about by an increase in population and new modes of communication and transportation.... Courts as a rule, instead of **525 attempting judicially to define a public as distinguished from a private purpose, have left each case to be determined on its own peculiar circumstances.  Promotion of the public safety and general welfare constitutes a recognized public purpose.... The modern trend of authority is to expand and liberally construe the meaning of public purpose. The test of public use is not how the use is furnished but rather the right of the public to receive and enjoy its benefit. "  (Citations omitted;  emphasis added;  internal quotation marks omitted.)   Katz v. Brandon, supra, at 532- 33, 245 A.2d 579;  [FN34]   Barnes v. New Haven, supra, at 15, 98 A.2d 523 .  Accordingly, the court in Katz rejected the plaintiff's argument that the redevelopment plan violated the public use requirement.   Katz v. Brandon, supra, at 534, 245 A.2d 579 .

FN34. Indeed, this court in Katz v. Brandon, supra, 156 Conn. at 533, 245 A.2d 579, noted that "[i]n this day of keen competition to attract industry and business to a state or to a particular locality, public officials are expected to cooperate in helping an industry to locate in their community.  They must be at all times alert in providing for future as well as present needs."  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)

The United States Supreme Court has afforded similarly broad treatment to the federal public use clause.  In Berman v. Parker, supra, 348 U.S. at 28-29, 75 S.Ct. 98, the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of the District of Columbia's redevelopment act, in which Congress had declared, as a matter of public policy, the acquisition *36 of property necessary to eliminate blight conditions.  The act allowed the redevelopment agency, once it acquired the property, to transfer it to redevelopment companies or individuals to carry out the plan;  indeed, private enterprise was preferred over public agencies for execution of the plan.   Id., at 30, 75 S.Ct. 98 .  The owner of a department store in the rehabilitation area challenged the taking of his property pursuant to the plan, and contended that it was unconstitutional because:  (1)