The Method Of Reviewing Public Interests In Takings

Private interests sometimes are inevitable in takings.In that case,the courts have to decide whether this kind of takings satisfy the public interest requirement or not in specific cases.Just as the public interest requirement in takings of China,the public use requirement in the Takings Clause in the United States is also quite vague.In the judicial process of discerning the public use requirement,beginning with Kelo v.City of New London,made by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2005,there are an increasing number of courts adopting the method of ranking diverse benefits,what is to distinguish primary benefits from incidental benefits in the multi-benefit structure after the taking.In that case,courts will only take into consideration whether the primary benefits violate the public use requirement,and whether the incidental benefits satisfy public use or not is negligible.In post-Kelo era,the supreme courts in different states,developed two angles of purposes and beneficiaries to distinguish various benefits.As for substantive due process,there emerged the ways of identifying arbitrary and capricious or bad faith determination.As for comprehensive planning,two different types of cases are presented.These methods of reviewing public benefits extracted from the Kelo case and post-Kelo cases,is extremely meaningful to China.Only on the basis of understanding and analyzing our own takings system can we learn from what is going on in the United States.