In Belovsky v. Redevelopment Authority of Philadelphia, 357 Pa. 329, 54 A.2d 277 (1947), the supreme court specifically addressed whether the Law violates a property owner's constitutional rights where the sale of the property involved in a redevelopment project ultimately results in taking the property from one individual and giving it to another. The supreme court held that the Law is constitutional, stating: Nothing, of course, is better settled than that property cannot be taken by government without the owner's consent for the mere purpose of devoting it to the private use of another, even though there be involved in the transaction an incidental benefit to the public.... However, it is not the object of the statute to transfer property from one individual to another; such transfers, so far as they may actually occur, are purely incidental to the accomplishment of the real or fundamental purpose i.e., the clearance, reconstruction and rehabilitation of the blighted area. Belovsky, 357 Pa. at 340, 54 A.2d at 282-83. Thus, the court concluded that a taking does not "lose its public character merely because there may exist in the operation some feature of private gain, for if the public good is enhanced it is immaterial that a private interest also may be benefited." Id. at 341, 54 A.2d at 283.