Tracy v. City of BoulderTracy v. City of Boulder
This is аn appeal from entry of a partial summary judgment favoring the municipal defendants. We affirm.
The сase involves plaintiffs’ challenge to the City of Boulder’s creation of an urban renewal authоrity pursuant to §§ 31-25-101 et seq. C.R.S.1973 (1980 Cum.Supp.). The Boulder City Council established the Boulder Urban Renewal Authority by ordinancе. The Authority then submitted an urban renewal plan to the City and, following public hearing, the City Council determined that the proposed urban renewal area was “blighted” and adopted an ordinance which еstablished an urban renewal plan for that area.
I.
Plaintiffs first argue that the trial court erred by granting defеndants’ motion for partial summary judgment and thereby denying plaintiffs’ request for a trial de novo on the detеrmination that a “blighted area” existed. We disagree.
Section 31-25-103(2), C.R.S.1973, provides:
“ ‘Blighted area’ means an area which, by reаson of the presence of a substantial number of slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures, рredominance of defective or inadequate street layout, faulty lot layout in relation tо size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness, unsanitary or unsafe conditions, deterioration of sitе or other improvements, unusual topography, defective or unusual conditions of title rendering the title nonmarketable, or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by firе and other causes, or any combination of such factors, substantially impairs or arrests the sound grоwth of the municipality, retards the provision of housing accommodations or constitutes an eсonomic or social liability, and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare in its present condition and use.”
The Council’s determination as to whether an area is blighted, when suсh determination relates to the need for an ordinance, is a legislative question and the scоpe of review by the judiciary is restricted.
United States Disposal Systems, Inc. v. City of Northglenn,
The trial court ruled, and we agree, that the Council’s findings of blight are amply supported by evidence presented to the Council. The blighted areа determination is supported by evidence of substandard housing and other forms of deterioration existing in the City of Boulder, as well as blight contained in the urban renewal area itself. The court noted that sрecific examples of blight were presented to the Council:
“Specifically, evidencе was adduced of traffic congestion due to inadequate or defective street layout; faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, and usefulness; topographical сonditions which pose a danger of flood and drainage water damage to life and property; defective or unusual conditions of title rendering titles non-marketable and other factors whiсh singly and in conjunction with one another, impair the sound growth of a municipality, constitute an economic liability and menace the public safety and welfare.”
The definition of blighted area cоntained in § 31-25-103(2), C.R.S.1973 (1980 Cum.Supp.), is broad and encompasses not only those areas containing properties so dilapidated as to justify condemnation as nuisances, but also envisions the prevention of deterioration. The absence of wide
*910
spread violations of building and health ordinances does not of itself establish arbitrariness on the part of the City Council.
Rabinoff v. District Court,
Plaintiffs failed to produce genuinе issues of material fact bearing on whether the City Council’s actions were arbitrary and capricious. The argument that the Council acted under an improper motive in reaching its decision is without merit, as the motivations actuating legislators in making factual determinations are irrelevant so long аs such determinations are supported by competent evidence in the legislative recоrd.
McCormick
v.
City of Montrose,
II.
Plaintiffs further argue that the ordinances adopted here involve an unconstitutional taking of privаte property, when applied to eventual private ownership, in contravention of Colo.Const. Art. II, Sec. 14, and demand judicial review pursuant to Colo.Const. Art. II, Sec. 15 which provides:
“[Wjhеnever an attempt is made to take private property for a use alleged to be рublic, the question whether the contemplated use be really public shall be a judicial question, аnd determined as such without regard to any legislative assertion that the use is public.”
Rabinoff v. District Court, supra,
has fully answered the quеstion of the constitutionality of urban renewal as a public use, ultimate private ownership notwithstanding.
Interstate Trust Building Co. v. Denver Urban Renewal Authority,
The judgment is affirmed.