*1 beneficiaries, secondary to whom it fits benefit, ultimately pay will a sizable so MANUFACTURING, DEALERS as the long limitations are based rea CO., Respondent, supported distinctions facts. sonable Minn, Fabio,

See, e.g., at 262-63; Minneapolis Gibbs v. ANOKA, OF COUNTY Relator. Ass’n, Dept. Minn. Fire Relief (“the (1914) gov N.W. No. C9-99-1869. ernment withdraw con the benefits ferred time it deem advisable” Court Supreme of Minnesota. (citation omitted)). We view distinc as supported by facts insofar as the Aug. requirement couple together that a reside

at the time of the member’s death is rele to the statutory- purpose encourag

vant secondary

ing provide beneficiaries to care companionship- primary beneficia 423B.10,

ries. Minnesota Statutes

1(a), is rationally legiti thus related to the governmental purposes preventing

mate marriages

sham and encouraging second

ary to care beneficiaries for MPRA mem

bers.

Jean Scott’s contention an arbitrary

distinction is created surviving when

spouses of joining police members de-

partment after 1980 would receive benefits

because PERA does not contain the “re- with”

siding language is be- unpersuasive

cause PERA is a pension plan different different provisions and members

PERA and of the MPRA cannot reason-

ably be viewed similarly as situated —thus protection

equal concerns do not arise.

Finally, as to Jean Scott’s contention was equal protection

that she denied

the basis sex because wives have denied

been benefits reason not re- with the

siding member at time of the death, point

member’s we out that pays per

MPRA millions of year dollars and will pay

wives to husbands benefits surviving spouses long

who are so cases all statutory

both requirements are

met. Therefore we conclude there was no protection

equal violation.

Reversed. *2 property, the market value of the

feet on value exceeded the market the assessed parties The filed value of the judg- partial summary for cross-motions interpretation of Minn.Stat. ment as to (1998), specifically, it limits in market value whether reduction relating to for contamination. motion conclud- granted tax court Dealers’ 17 does ing that Minn.Stat. value to reductions in market apply stigma. Mfg. See Dealers Co. due to Anoka, C4-98-2963, 1999 County No. * (Minn. Sept. 5-6 Tax Ct. 8,1999). We affirm. subject property dispute manufacturing plant in Anoka site by In 1988 Deal-

County owned Dealers. groundwater and soil con- ers discovered of solvents tamination related the use Agen- the Minnesota Pollution Control and Haluska, Anoka (MPCA) Thomas G. Assistant cy placed Anoka, Attorney, appellant. County for implement- list. Superfund Dealers State MPCA-approved response ed a Biersdorf, & Associ- Daniel J. Biersdorf spent As of Dealers had in 1995. ates, P.A., Minneapolis, respondent. for $350,000 up against to clean the property Wilhelmy, Kaplan, R. Z. Thomas Steven $560,000. projection cost clean-up total Bryon, for Minneapolis, Fredrickson & were still on Contaminants curiae. amicus the time the tax court’s property at summary judgment ruling. efforts, course of its remediation In the appraisal in 1997 Dealers obtained OPINION MAI, Leirness, which concluded Alan value was to a STRINGER, Justice. factor due the risk of liabili- devaluation taxpayer chal- consider whether a costs, liability clean-up fear of ty for is enti- lenging property tax assessment contamination, and arising from the public value of to a reduction the assessed tled In Leir- mortgageability.1 lack of possible based opinion ness’ Manufacturing, Dealers Co. Taxpayer, $500,000. could exceed (Dealers), court for a petitioned the tax value of county assessed the market of its contami- reduction assessment (the $1,336,600 and in 1997 coun- nated Anoka that, petition in the tax Dealers filed ty) on the basis § 278.01 to Minn.Stat. pursuant into ef- failed to take account possible concept "stigma” is based on contaminants 1. The Patchin, theory mortgageability. of contaminated Peter J. lack of MAI, purchaser of ty is reduced due to the risk to a Properties, Valuation Contaminated costs, liability liability fear of J., Appraisal at 7. Jan. public who are harmed members n (1998)2 challenging the assessment on the to construe it to be included “contamina- basis that it exceeded the property’s actual tion value.” The court further noted that market value in violation of Minn.Stat. required assessors are to consider all rele- (1998),3 and that the- vant valuing property factors when and to *3 property was not equally assessed when see Minn. assess property at market compared with other in violation (1998); § 273.11, § Stat. 273.12 Minn.Stat. rights Dealers’ constitutional to equal 1, and to exclude or limit the stigma protection and uniform taxation.4 The factor in the valuation of the county responded 273.11, § that Minn.Stat. would be inconsistent with statutory subd. 175 limits in reductions market value mandate. the tax court reasoned contamination, resulting from including the that as was well aware of factor, to the reasonable cost aof impact of stigma tax reve- response plan. action nues,6 if it had intended to include stigma among the determining contamina-

In granting Dealers’ motion for it would have referenced partial “stig- summary judgment, the tax court 273.11, § ma” in 273.11, Minn.Stat. § noted that subd. 17. The Minn.Stat.. tax court makes no reference ordered a trial to “stigma” to ad determine the —it 2, dresses value of the property January reduction market as of value resulting from the “presence of contami consistent ruling with its nants” —and that because can re value was not to main after all contaminants have been re included the contamination value for moved from it incongruous 273.11, purposes of section subd. 17.7 278.01, § 2. Minnesota pro- Statutes subd. 1 of the market value reduction that results statutory remedy taxpayer vides contaminants, for a whose but it property has been assessed excess of mar- not exceed the cost of a reasonable ket value: response plan action or asbestos abatement plan management program prop- or for the Any person having personal property, or erty. estate, title, right, or interest in' or lien 273.11, § Minn.Stat. subd. 17. land, upon any parcel of who claims that * * n . 273.11, Section subdivision 17 references such has been assessed at 270.92, (1998) § Minn.Stat. subd. 6 for the valuation than its real or actual * * * response plan definition of a action which validity have the plan describes a to claim, defense, ap- remove contamination objection determined * * * proved by the commissioner of MPCA or the district court or the tax court agriculture pursuant commissioner of to 469.174, (1998); § Minn.Stat. subd. 17 Minn. § Minn.Stat. subd. 1. (1998); chapter chap- 115B Minn.Stat. § 3. Minn.Stat. subd. 1 states: "Ex- (1998); ter 18D or Minn.Stat. 115C.03 cept provided as prop- this section all (1998). erty shall be at its market value." valued 6. representatives The tax court noted that XIV, 1; 4. See U.S. Const.amend. Minn. county assessors' offices had testified n Const, X, § art. 1. summary judg- regarding assessing properties impacted by ruling by ment the tax court was based on a hearing Represen of the House of statutory analysis and therefore the court did tatives Co., Mfg. Committee on Taxes. See Dealers not reach the Equal *4; issues related to the Pro- Hearing see also Comm, tection Taxes, Clause of the United States Constitu- on H.F. 78th Minn. tion or Uniformity (audio Clause of the Minneso- Leg., tape). Mar. ta Constitution. advisory While we do not condone the na 5. Minnesota Statutes subdivision 17 us, ture of the matter before we review this provides: appeal judicial economy. in the interests of determining Revenue, proper- market value of Tarutis Commissioner contaminants, ty containing (Minn. 1986). the assessor repeat our Center, shall reduce the proper- warning market value of the Trade Inc. v. Brookfield ty by however, County Ramsey contamination value of the respect that with ty. The contamination appellate value is the amount specifically to review not autho threatened to the “release or the tax an order of review of Our the court to whether release” limited court contrary it was jurisdiction applies

lacked of law. an error or based on ap- the evidence attempts provide a coherent (1998). The tax § 271.10 of Minn.Stat. plication summary judg grants appropriately contending argument, with its consistent as to issue genuine there is no ment where should be that the statute moving party is any material fact taxpayer where a has following situations: a matter law. judgment entitled implement yet begun 56.03; Brook P. see also R. Civ. See Minn. by stig- affected *4 Inc., Ctr., -609 at 873- Trade N.W.2d field ma, equal value should the contamination 81.01(a) 74; (noting Minnesota Rules Rule taxpayer a after the plan; the cost of such pro to tax apply of Civil Procedure court the con- begun implement plan, has to where not inconsistent ceedings amount equal value should tamination tax court’s procedures). clean-up plus costs remaining on the ruling is based summary judgment resulting from market value reduction which we of law question resolution of response the total cost of the stigma up to Co., Inc. v. F-D de novo. See Oil review completion, nears action as the plan; Revenue, N.W.2d 560 Commissioner of attributable to of the deduction portion (Minn.1997). 701, 704 and the costs should decrease clean-up ob analysis our with the begin in- stigma to should portion attributable recognized have that we servation crease, exceeding with the deduction never market value considering of practice plan. the total cost of value of clean present of both the impact fails for several county’s argument devaluative factor and the up costs First, factor can attach reasons. in determin considerations appropriate are whether contaminants market value of ing the threatened, totally are ab- are or present, Westling v. properties. Where, has example, property (Minn.1996) sent. Lacs, 93 543 leaving no successfully remediated been II). II, af Westling we (Westling contamination, prop- proximity or is on valuation of zero based firmed a market contaminated, is clean-up erty the estimated cost n heavy as a burden Id. be stigma discount. nonetheless due on the value of however, that Minn. county argues govern- liability, of risk perception cap on places the use or on imposed ment restrictions relating to from market deductions among oth- transferability of factor, contamination, including Second, Patchin, supra. er concerns. of a reasonable remediation at the cost concedes, language plain dissent as the that even county contends plan. The it subd. 17 is that of Minn.Stat. “stig- refer to does not though the statute actually applies ma,” contaminants” “presence the market determining “In contaminated: threatened re- as “the release or defined containing contaminants value of on the of contaminants lease n n n .» Because the term “contamination (1998)- ty,” Minn.Stat. in mar- as the reduction value” is defined by stigma property affected thus because dump- leaching, escaping, rized, charging, injecting, discretionary review will grant of our which disposing the environment cautiously ing, into exercised. (Minn.2000). or which contin- point 873 n. at a in time occurred 115B.02, occur.” Minn.Stat. ues to leaking, “any spilling, defined as 8. Release is (1998). emitting, emptying, dis- pumping, pouring, resulting legislation, ket value ed the the committee chair re . contaminants, it a stigma does not include ferred to v County Mille C5-92-341, stigma may prop- C7-92-342, factor because attach to Nos. (Minn.Tax 35155; Feb.10, 1993), not itself contaminated but erty at *3 (Minn.1994), nevertheless can have a rev’d substantial 512 N.W.2d 863 where determining the value.of uncontaminat- the tax court concluded that proper two Third, property.9 county’s attempt $974,200 ed ties that had been assessed at of the statute un- application rationalize had a market value of due to contami $100 is creative but der various scenarios has no nation and Hearing on H.F. Comm, Taxes, basis language 78th Minn. Leg., Mar. ,17 (audio (comments Fourth, subd. whatsoever. tape) of Chair Rest). recognized separate II we Rep. despite But. the committee specific bases for reduction market value based chair’s Westling, reference costs, hand, one there was no suggestion was to damage, discount for environmental be included contamination value.11 We on the other. 543 N.W.2d at 93. as- decline to read into the statute a construc .To sume the intended to plain include tion that-contradicts *5 273.11,'subd. § in contamination which by Minn.Stat. 17 unsup and is definition is measured the cost of ported by legislative clean- history. up, inappropriately would blur these dis- argument The of the dissent relies tinct impacting market value.10 heavily point that Dealer’s

Although we resolve Dealers’ claim inwas fact contaminated and therefore the statute, plain language based on the court should not be concerned with the we also note that the legislative history devaluation effect of on property county’s fails to support position. that is not contaminated. We cannot avoid statute under review here was enacted the issue before simply the court so how- part ever, 1993 as of an chapter article of sequence argument as the of this tax, creating a contamination a tax on the anomaly leads to the that stigma would be contamination value of taxable real capped the cost of the remediation 24, 1993, ty. May Act contaminated, ch. art. for property that is but for 12, 1-9, 2728, 2941-45, § 1993 Minn. Laws property that is not stig- contaminated the 270.91-98; §§ now at Minn.Stat. ma factor fully would be taken into account codified 273.11, § explain- Minn.Stat. subd. 17. In in determining the assessed value. The ing' the tax revenue that precipitat- justification issues lack of rational for this Leirness, MAI, representative In affidavit of Alan Hennepin Dealers’ 11.A Coun explained: "Stigma he even can exist if con- ty Assessor’s Office commented as to the diffi property, e.g. tamination is not on valuing culties of contaminated in- property adjacent subject to the is site known eluding property by stigma, affected . to be contaminated site is one of such factors on tax reve where the contamination has been remediat- Comm, Hearing nues. See H.F. on ed.” Taxes, (audio Leg., 78th Minn. Mar. tape). argues The dissent that based on these 10. The dissent errs in its assertion that our legislature statements the intended to include interpretation superflu- of the statute renders stigma in but contamination the com language ous that the contamination value representative ments of the assessor’s "may not exceed the cost of a reasonable support opposite office in fact conclusion. 273.11, plan.” Minn.Stat. Although clearly aware of the-effect of language subd. 17. It is clear that this effec- valuations, tively limits contamination value to stigrha enacting purposes computing costs for failed to include con contami- ' tax, provisions. §§ nation see Minn.Stat. 270.91-98 tamination tax (1998), way suggests but in no need not be assessed at a market value that stigma. takes into account the effects of summary judgment entitled to further underscores treatment disparate of law. a matter in con- reasoning court’s logic included is not cluding Affirmed. value. n BLATZ, (dissenting). Chief Justice county’s interpretation inconsis- subd. dissent. respectfully tax scheme subd. holds that Minn.Stat. with Minnesota’s tent (1998), limit market value re- exceptions, limited does not that with provides con- market associated with valued at ductions for to be all plain Because the property. taminated that Minn.Stat. county argues value. contemplates subdivision excep- of those 17 is one resulting reductions it is true disagree. While tions. We a re- is such creating duction, I reverse the tax court would excep- value is of contamination concept all 17 limits and hold that subdivision section statutory rule of general tion to 1 stigma including such “all shall be 1 that —to reductions — value,” cleaning up the cost exception valued at its the reduction 17 permits in subdivision - does it authorize nowhere market value merits of the ma- discussing the Before market value than the valuation decision, however, express I must jority failing be the result which would with the court’s consideration my concern Further, consistent account for at this time. addition of this case the as- statutory admonition that as noted posture inappropriate procedural *6 weight give and due must “consider sessor 7, there have majority in footnote by the the affecting factor and every to element of fact as to the amount findings no been 12 property, the section value” of subject prop- associated with the of specifically appears 1 subdivision year, or to of contested tax erty the in its of the reject argument the necessary to 'considerations the other value into ac- shall take “the assessor provision record Amazingly, case. the deciding this of the market value the effect on count of mar- include an estimate does not even factors in of environmental for the contaminated ket value ” 13-a brief but vicinity parties of know is that' All we issue. environmental recognition clear stipulated unim- apparently have affecting mar- (e.g.contamination) market value of paired present on the although not ket have been $1,336,600, clean-up costs taken into ac- are to be subject property, $560,000, be projected to be one of appear would Stigma count. $500,000.” exceed possibly “could factors.14 those Therefore, if not know the we do clean-up, of exceed the cost value will even as de- contamination value hold that integral assumption of fact key 17 does by Minn.Stat. fined majority’s reasoning.1 therefore Dealers stigma and not include Westling line of posture of the procedural § 273.12. 12. Minn.Stat. Lacs, County Mille Westling v. cases. of (emphasis 13. Minn.Stat. III); (Minn.1998) (Westling 815 added). Lacs, County N.W.2d 543 v. of II); 1996) (Minn. v. (Westling 91 in- concluding that contamination (Minn. N.W.2d 863 County Mille 512 ignores simply stigma, the dissent cludes I). 1994) (Westling a full trial There statutory mandates. these prior,to our was conducted issue valuation of the contaminated the valuation review of pos- procedural incomplete 1. This record I, at 865- Westling 512 N.W.2d property. See sharply the record and ture contrasts If on remand the tax court finds there to sponse plan action or asbestos abate- be little or no associated with plan management this ment program for finding alone could render the issue before us moot. 17(a) (emphasis Thus, is, what we have before us in es added); see also Minn.Stat. 270.93 sence, advisory opinion, something (1998). Market value loss due to contami- “judicial not comprehend.” function does nation is caused several factors such as Endowment, League Am. Izaak Walton stigma, liability public, and clean-up State, Resources, Inc. v. Natural Dep’t of Patchin, costs. See Peter J. Valuation of 587, 589, 312 Minn. N.W.2d J., Properties, Contaminated Appraisal (1977). Nonetheless, might the court words, Jan. at 11. In other presented well to decide the issue advised one contributor to market value reduction. judicial economy exception under the majority Thus while the concludes that Revenue, Tarutis Commissioner because stigma is not specifically men- (Minn.1986), N.W.2d and Brook tioned in subdivision 17 it must be exclud- Ctr., Trade Inc. v. Ramsey, field statute, ed from that I opposite reach the (Minn.2000), 873-74 n. 6 if conclusion. Because the statute does not prevent the tax court from pro specifically stigma, exclude it limits the ceeding along its course. market value reduction —whether it results us, clean-up costs or some-

Turning to the ma- issue before thing else—to the response jority plain language writes that costs.2 is determi- controversy. agree native majority’s reasoning in support of subdivision is clear. It interpretation its plain meaning states: First, scrutiny. does withstand

In determining the market value assumes that “contamination val- property containing equates ue” “clean-up just costs” be- assessor shall reduce the market value cause limit chose to contam- ination value to the costs of the *7 value of the property. contamina- action plan. provides Subdivision 17 that tion value is amount the the market the contamination “may value not exceed of value reduction that results the the cost of a reasonable response action from presence the but it may plan.” language This would be rendered not exceed the cost of a superfluous reasonable re- if the contamination value was Accordingly, 66. tax the court had 2. The Westling heard notes that in our 1996 testimony experts II, to the nature and we affirmed a reduction in the value of a extent of contamination and the value property contaminated to zero based on clean-up; testimony by of the future costs of clean-up and a costs discount. In so Patchin, appraiser Peter J. for the tax noting, majority implies the that this court petitioners, property negative that the had a previously has Minn.Stat. opinions market value based on his as to the 17, to limit a reduction in unimpaired market the loss of value response plan market value to the costs of a costs; stigma, clean-up due to and where reduction was also found. testimony by county's appraiser the whose true, While subdivision 17 was not in effect opinions unsurprisingly, differed years question Westling for the tax in II. As II, Westling from Patchin’s. See decision, Westling we stated in our 1998 III 93; I, Westling N.W.2d at 865-66. 17, Minn.Stat. which was en- importantly, Most the tax court rendered a beginning acted in was effective with matter, including findings decision in that its taxes, payable in 1995. The 1996 Wes- property, of fact as to the value of the based tling petitioner's II case involved a tax findings chal- on its components. of fact as to the valuation II, taxes, lenge pay- See 1992 and 1993 assessed N.W.2d at able in 1993 and 1994. decision, filing of that diately following the contamina- clean-up the cost simply (1998) 645.17(2) a contamination tax was proposing a bill tion. See legislature. in the Minnesota presumed introduced that it must be (providing Representa- “entire statute 1 Journal of the House See legislature intended certain”). (78th Rather, Minn.Leg. Feb. tives and to be effective 1993). bill, hearings At the demonstrates language clean-up costs the im- that while case result was noted as contemplated in the mar- a reduction a contamination tax to-recover might petus contribute for clean-up costs productive ket value of taxes from lost synony- contaminated, are not valuable, value and contamination although Comm, Hearing mous. on H.F. ties. See Taxes, Mar. Leg., 78th Minn. provi- tax contamination companion (audio tape). (1998) §§ 270.91-98 sions Minn.Stat. majority’s equating contradict the also hearings at the spoke The assessors who costs. clean-up value contamination complications explained on the bill instance, § 270.93 states: For id. valuing contaminated Hanscom, parcel Hennepin County value of a The contamination Bob Office, of the often diffi- is the amount stated: “It’s Assessor’s reduction, granted any, that is the loss in value due to identify cult to if just necessarily ad valorem It isn’t general pur- contamination. issue year up. clean it It’s this poses for the assessment cost to presence of contaminants. there .” Id. These comments out description value for with Patchin’s comport cost of than the estimated be no loss value for factors, ac- stig- such as implementing reasonable as caused various * * requirements. *. ma and Patchin, supra, Accordingly, at 11. words, legislature recognized In other of the broad legislature’s use contami- not have that a reduction that results from “market value presence of con- nation value due clearly was of contaminants” taminants. meant to include addition, history leads legislative agree while I with some is included to the conclusion conclusions, agree majority’s do not value. The first the contamination holding concept they support apply decision Minnesota of contami- independent from and separate Westling v. was majority, I con- C7-92-342, value. Like the 1993 nation & Nos. C5-92-341 *8 tax, thus (Minn. 10, cludé that the contamination Tax Ct. Peb. at *1-3 in described Minn. contamination value 1993), property a was where the value of 273.11, applies only $1,000,000 § for subd. Stat. nearly $100 reduced actually contaminated.3 that is stigma property due to purposes tax assessment for may possible it agree also that to cure contamination and costs whether stigma to attach to gener- property though property property, even I do not present. are not contaminants $144,000 for the own- in annual rent ated however, must be mutu- that these agree, in for a security, part, ers and served as Simply ally exclusive conclusions. $1,000,000 See mortgage on uncontaminated may attach to II, stigma Imme- at 92-93. Westling property not have that uncontaminated very will opinion majority’s 3. This fact makes bring subject uncontami- to the con- puzzling. up in and is not In its effort be cleaned reading justification for property nated as tax. tamination statute, ignores the fact stigma out of the it formerly does not be reduced for stigma. These facts stigma mean that was not included in this are not before us.5 legislative response to the valuation of con- In addition holding that contamina fact, taminated properties.4 In to read tion value includes stigma, I would hold out the statute is to unnecessari- § that Minn.Stat. does ly limit the definition of contamination val- not Uniformity violate the Clause of the ignore ue and to the context within which Equal Minnesota Constitution nor the Pro adopted. the statute was tection Clause of the United States Consti Critically, the issue before us is ap- issues, tution. These as well as a claim to contaminat- plication of subdivision tax governmental was a taking, ed response which is to a were decided Westling by action plan and which be affected (1998) (Wes 581 N.W.2d 815 applicability of that stat- —not III). tling III, Westling In we held that ute or of to uncontaminated or the contamination tax provisions at Minn. formerly contaminated properties. Given 270.91-98, §§ Stat. which accompanied issue, that this is the central it is critical to in the 1993 focus on the fact that in the case before us bill, III, Westling are constitutional. we have a contaminated property on the 581 N.W.2d at 823-24. Although we did Superfund list. It a property is for which expressly not refer to Minn.Stat. value, we do not know the market provision clearly is encom or the actual clean-up costs. passed by First, the decision. the contam Nonetheless, majority has decided that “ ination tax is ‘market value reduction its value caused an un- reduction, any, if granted gener known not for capped by the cost of al ad valorem response plan purposes estimates of the costs. ” Although holding advisory because of the and of of contaminants.’ itself, III, Westling majority goes then on to decide (quoting 270.93). that for Second, uncontaminated value Minn.Stat. we recog majority’s statement that there points is no 5. The majority also to Minn.Stat. justification” (1998), permitting "rational for uncon- support of its properties, taminated but holding. not contaminated provides Subdivision that the "as- properties, to deduct sup- is not sessor shall take into account the effect on the First, ported by the law. subdivision 17 does market value of the of environmental preclude stigma; just not all deductions for it vicinity property.” factors in the Minn. limits reductions in value for this difficult to subd. 1. The cites this define factor to the statutory provision costs of a support for its conclu- plan. importantly, ig- More this assertion (e.g.contamination) sion that "environmental precedent Westling nores our recent affecting III. although upholding the contamination tax subject property, scheme in are to be III, we held that there is a Again rational taken into majority's account.” treating basis for contaminated and beyond scope unconta- reach is of the issues before properties differently. minated us. This case prop- is about a contaminated III, Among erty 581 N.W.2d at 821. the reasons an uncontaminated —not identified proximity were that contaminated properties. to other contaminated Further, may result in increased health risks and con- expressly the statutes at issue are community blight tributes to and economic concerned with environmental factors in that *9 distress. See id. at 821. they recognize "Contaminated the effects of contamination on property thereby poses burden on values and set forth a framework to society property.” than uncontaminated properties accordingly. Id. assess and tax the Fi- III, As we presence nally, said in "the even if subdivisions 1 and 17 of Minn. contamination, conflict, along environmental with the Stat. 273.11 are in and I do not are, responsibility up, genu- extent of they for clean are believe subdivision 17 is the more treating ine and rational specific recently bases” for contami- and most enacted and would nated and uncontaminated differ- to the See Minn. ently. (1998). Id. 645. subds. “applies nized reduced has been of envi value due

assessed III, contamination.”

ronmental after conclud at 821. nei tax violated the contamination

ing that the Minne Clause of Uniformity

ther Protection Equal

sota Constitution nor Constitution, we held U.S.

Clause imposi that “the argument Westling’s tax in excess of a contamination gov constitutes of their compensation, is taking without

ernmental * * * Thus, Id. at 822. without merit.” arguments these constitutional Westling, by us made and decided

were them here. to revisit

there is no need and our clear record before us

Given the respondent’s spurn I would

precedent, and our the statutes

invitation to unravel Accordingly, I it. interpreting

precedent grant par- the tax court’s

would reverse remand for summary judgment and

tial proceedings.

further

PAGE, J. of Chief Justice join in the dissent

Blatz. ANDERSON, J.

PAUL Justice join in the dissent Chief

Blatz. Minnesota, Respondent,

STATE of SCHWARTZ, DeWayne

Jason

Appellant.

No. C1-99-1946. Minnesota. Appeals

Court

June