Webb Golden Valley, LLC, Evelyn Thomson v. State of Minnesota, Global One Golden Valley, LLC, Golden Valley Housing and Redevelopment Authority, 865 N.W.2d 689

Minnesota DOT owned three parcels (Tract N, Lot 18, Alley Parcel) no longer needed for I-394 and proposed to convey them under Minn. Stat. § 161.44 to the Golden Valley HRA.
The HRA had agreed to transfer Tract N to Global One for an $85M residential project (senior and multi-family housing); Lot 18 and the Alley Parcel were to become public right-of-way.
Webb Golden Valley, LLC owned adjacent property and a remainder interest in the Alley Parcel; Webb sued seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the § 161.44 conveyance was not for a public purpose and seeking either the property or a public auction.
The district court: denied dismissal as to the Alley Parcel (remainder interest) but dismissed claims as to Tract N and Lot 18 for lack of standing (loss of opportunity to bid insufficient); later ordered Webb to post a $3.2M surety bond under Minn. Stat. §§ 469.044-.045 based on risk of lost investors and tax revenue; Webb failed to post and the suit was dismissed with prejudice.
Court of appeals reversed both the partial standing dismissal and the bond dismissal; this court granted further review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to challenge State conveyance under Minn. Stat. § 161.44	Webb: loss of opportunity to bid on Tract N and Lot 18 is a concrete, particularized injury-in-fact	State/Intervenors: Webb lacks any legal interest in those parcels, so mere lost bidding opportunity is insufficient	Held: Webb has standing — loss of a particularized opportunity to bid is an injury-in-fact
District court’s order requiring a surety bond under Minn. Stat. §§ 469.044-.045	Webb: suit does not challenge HRA authority; evidence of public harm (lost investors, tax revenue) is speculative and cannot rely on § 117.025 public-purpose definition	HRA/State: litigation threatens HRA/Project authority; evidence shows investor withdrawal, delayed project, lost jobs and tax revenue supporting bond	Held: Court did not abuse discretion; Webb’s suit draws into question HRA authority and record evidence supports potential public/taxpayer harm; § 117.025 public-purpose definition is inapplicable

Lorix v. Crompton Corp., 736 N.W.2d 619 (Minn. 2007) (standing requires injury-in-fact or statutory grant)
In re Custody of D.T.R., 796 N.W.2d 509 (Minn. 2011) (standing is a jurisdictional issue reviewed de novo)
Snyder’s Drug Stores, Inc. v. Minn. State Bd. of Pharmacy, 221 N.W.2d 162 (Minn. 1974) (distinguishing private interest from general public grievance for standing)
Anderly v. City of Minneapolis, 552 N.W.2d 236 (Minn. 1996) (public corporation may obtain surety bond where litigation can impair projects or public interest)
Day Masonry v. Independent Sch. Dist. 347, 781 N.W.2d 321 (Minn. 2010) (appellate preservation of alternate theories for affirmance)