Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 35.81.080 (2026)

Eminent domain

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A municipality shall have the right to acquire by condemnation, in accordance with the procedure provided for condemnation by such municipality for other purposes, any interest in real property, which it may deem necessary for a community renewal project under this chapter after the adoption by the local governing body of a resolution declaring that the acquisition of the real property described therein is necessary for such purpose. Condemnation for community renewal of blighted areas is declared to be a public use, and property already devoted to any other public use or acquired by the owner or a predecessor in interest by eminent domain may be condemned for the purposes of this chapter.

The award of compensation for real property taken for such a project shall not be increased by reason of any increase in the value of the real property caused by the assembly, clearance, or reconstruction, or proposed assembly, clearance, or reconstruction in the project area. No allowance shall be made for the improvements begun on real property after notice to the owner of such property of the institution of proceedings to condemn such property. Evidence shall be admissible bearing upon the insanitary, unsafe, or substandard condition of the premises, or the unlawful use thereof.

[ 2002 c 218 s 8; 1965 c 7 s 35.81.080. Prior: 1957 c 42 s 8.]

Notes:

Severability—Savings—Construction—2002 c 218: See notes following RCW 35.81.005.

Eminent domain by cities: Chapter 8.12 RCW.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1963–1976 · leading case: Miller v. City of Tacoma, 378 P.2d 464 (Wash. 1963).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Miller v. City of Tacoma, 378 P.2d 464 (Wash. 1963). “070) or condemnation (RCW 35.81.080); and, after acquisition, to hold, improve, clear, or prepare the property for redevelopment.”

City of Seattle v. Loutsis Inv. Co., 554 P.2d 379 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976). “RCW 35.81.080. Proof that the condemnation of some other property would have served the City’s purpose just as well or better than condemnation of the Cliff House will not defeat the City’s selection of Loutsis’ property.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.