“It would be difficult to adjust the matter; and in many cases it might operate harshly upon the owner to compel him to take and pay for the improvements. On the whole, therefore, the plan of compelling the city to take the land in fee simple, and the owner to part with his whole title for a just compensation, would seem to be the most simple and equitable that could be adopted; unless there is some objection on the ground that a fee simple is more sacred than an estate for life or years, or than an easement of greater or less duration. We can see no ground for regarding one of these titles as more sacred than another, or for regarding land as more sacred than personal property. * * * “Whether land be taken under the clause authorizing the making of wholesome and reasonable laws, or by virtue of the clause authorizing the appropriation of private property to public uses, it must in either case be left to the legislature to decide what quantity of estate ought to be taken in order to accomplish its purpose, and do the most complete justice to all parties.” If a municipality were justified in taking an area in order to control the surroundings of a park or boulevard, the proceeding would not be rendered illegal by the fact, if fact it was, that the hope of pecuniary profit was a strong, or even the controlling, motive. If there is a sound basis which justifies the action of public officials, the motive by which those officials are actuated is not open to judicial inquiry.[87] If, then, it be a legitimate part of a public improvement—as few would question that it is—to impose appropriate restrictions upon the use and improvement of adjacent property, and if, as seems probable, the condemnation of the entire title can be authorized for that purpose, a municipal body could be empowered by the legislature to acquire title to land outside of the physical area of improvement; and if the municipality had also been authorized by the legislature to sell any interest no longer needed in any of its land, it could sell the land subject to all necessary conditions or restrictions; nor would it lie in the mouth of any court to question the proceeding or brand it as illegal because the real, efficient motive may have been to get the benefit of the enhancement in the value of the property. There is probably no constitutional obstacle to legislation investing a city, park board, county, or other appropriate agency with power to condemn as part of or supplementary to a public improvement such contiguous area as the reasonable needs of the improvement itself might require to be subjected to proper restrictions; nor could such a law be condemned by reason of its also authorizing the sale of the land subject to such conditions or restrictions as the public authorities saw fit to impose upon it.[88]