*1 al., Royal Ira L. TRIBE et Plaintiffs Appellants,

SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION Agency of al., Respondents. et Defendants

No. 13856.

Supreme Court Utah.

July

torate the City action which will —an plan. not be taken proposed under the proposed plan 3. The contravenes the provisions VI, of Article Section Constitution, because issuance *3 proposed of the bonds would in be a fact lending of credit in violation of this con- provision. stitutional 4. operation The construction and of proposed parking facility will result Waldo, Hughes, Jr., R. Michael D. H. granting private benefits, and of Ockey Wright, of Robert and Ronald W. 7, 22, I, thus contravene Article Sections McDonough, Waldo, Jones, & Holbrook 24, Constitution, and 23 Utah City, plaintiffs-appellants. Salt Lake Fourteenth Amendment to the United Fox and D. Oswald Richard S. William States Constitution. Fox, City, Strong, Lake of Poelman & Salt proposed plan 5. The violation defendants-respondents. XIII, 5, of Article Utah Section Consti- Baldwin, Parley Ogden, for amicus R. tution, provi- because the tax allocation curiae. plan sions of the are a clear interference power County City

with and of MAUGHAN, purposes. all to collect taxes for Justice: is the decision of appeal on Here Redevelopment Agency is That the 6. Neighbor- declaring the Utah district court subject budgetary applicable laws constitutional, and Development Act1 hood to cities. be taken proposed to actions taken and proposed That allocation 7. provisions are statutory pursuant to those valuation base of using an assessed taxes constitutionally permissible. application constitutes retroactive 1970 declaratory Plaintiffs commenced enabling law, and thus violates in the court below judgment action statutory proper principles of construc- forego- alleged purpose having the tion. unconsti- ing statutes and actions declared Corpo- City Lake In Salt June seven plaintiffs raise appeal tutional. On Redevelopment Agency created the ration which, points, any five of one of the first City, referred (hereinafter Lake of Salt valid, if be sufficient reverse pursuant provisions Agency) court, of the and defeat action lower Development Neighborhood Utah of the summary, points proposed project. In Act). as the referred to (hereinafter Act by plaintiffs raised are: Commissioners Board of Agency Redevelopment That 1. as the Re- Corporation designated City proposed special is in commission fact City. Feb- In development Agency of the provisions and of Article contravenes adopted or- duly City ruary of VI, Constitution. Section Utah plan redevelopment approving a dinance we with which project for the area proposed 2. The streets concerned, viz., the blocks here of the a debt bonds constitute area thereto, the two-block XIV, adjacent meaning of Article within by First South Constitution, the north on and bounded Sections Street, on Street, by Main east on the require approval the elec- thus would IV, Chapter seq., U.C.A.1953; of Utah 1974. Laws et 11-19-1 Street, South as the retired, south Third on bonds are after total Temple west way, West Street. taxes assessed find will through channels, normal to the various plan recognized project taxing agencies, arising while the revenue area were a number of substandard there operation from the parking facility use; buildings and substandard land becomes Agency, that of the for use in fu- cases, rehabilitation, through some redevelopment ture projects. It is this tax acquisition, rebuilding clearance and allocation feature central to the cases, other area could be im- matters here for consideration. result, proved, among things with the other Agency, Are the and its methods for im- strengthening the tax base amelio- objects its plementing constitutionally per- rating economic health entire missible? The question answer to this community. plan area Within this hinges on objects whether the purposes *4 operation called for the construction of the local; Act are or statewide facility, of a parking by to financed the whether Agency, the by structured $15,000,000 issuance tax of of allocation Act, is a such one as can concurrently ex- and parking revenue bonds. These bonds ist municipal corporations and assess- by are to be retired parking revenues and ment units. taxes, from an allocation of formula given concept for which is in The redevelopment the Act.2 The of allo- was en- by cation acted of taxes comes about in the legislature, state follow- its area of operation ing year statewide, fashion: A base (in is chosen and deals awith year provided statewide problem, viz., the last 1970) sure, instance blight. To be equalized present prior February project to assessment roll area appear 11, adoption only have 1971, operation, date of the of the local but it must be redevelopment original plan. On that date remembered that it operation is a local of an possibility providing general act there was of of no scope; statewide Agency, operation be- that its allocation of taxes to the local hinges on a contin- 1974, 4, April gency it was not until legislative cause decision body —the provided financing Agency. such a of method A by decision motivated within by legislature.3 Taxes assessed existence of a condition of statewide paid project to be area will continue concern. through nor- taxing agencies, the various appears It clear that the Agency channels, valua- mal based on the assessed here concerned is quasi-municipal a corpo of by roll tion the assessment established ration, special and not a A commission. 1970. quasi-municipal corporation has been de valuation, that es- public above fined Any as a agency by increase created legislature roll of by assessment pub tablished to aid the state some area, an in- produce will within the lic general welfare, work for the oth incre- is this revenue. crement in tax er than to perform community as another directly to re- be diverted ment which will government.4 A municipal corporation is a allocation tax This tire the bonds. body politic corporate, created to ad anticipated revenues together with minister internal of concerns the dis facility operation of the from the corporate limits; trict embraced within its obligated revenues will the sole constitute peculiar place matters such provides plan The to retire the bonds. large. special common state at A time such continues until that this method group body separate commission is some or Chapter 4, Utah 1974. 2. Laws of McQuillin, Municipal Corporations, Section 4.1 3d 2.13, p. Ed., Sec. 467. Chapter 4, April 1974. Id. effective date municipal and distinct government. from The Act specifically provides that Such a commission is not offensive to the the bonds and other obligations of the creation, constitution its only agency when are not a debt or obligation of the powers a commission is delegated community (which is defined in the Act as purely which intrude into city, areas munici- a county or combination the two), pal state, concern. of its subdivi political addition,

sions. In statute,8 the enabling proposed plaintiff’s resolution, The success chal bond proposed lenges depends upon form, the character of the bond city ordinance of rati agency legislature. prohibit If created fication all the use of credit of the legislative per repayment city enactment authorizes the in the bonded activities, qualify only formance debtedness. bondholders can look performed by appropriately operation function revenues from the of the fa agency, cility taxes, state the constitutional interdiction and the allocated for retire VI, applicable. obligation. ment the bond of Article Section Under municipal statute, applies subject providing arrange This for this section functions, ment, of which are performance city there can be no debt created 4; local contrary XIV, to the units 3 and constitutionally limited to Article Sections of “urban problem lending city’s nor government.5 can there be VI, statewide recognize as one of credit Article blight” we contravention of Sec *5 merely a or munici concern, and local tion 29. not that reason problem. agency for

pal The Patterick v. Con In Carbon Water VI, run to Article Section does not counter servancy District9 this court stated cor quasi-municipal agency is a 28. The 3 the constitutional inhibitions of Sections public agency for bene poration, a created cities, only to apply of Article and 4 XIV It purposes. is necessary public ficial there villages towns and subdivisions corporation, having municipal not true of, apply quasi-municipal and do not agency power government, of local municipalities corporations, which are designed purposes. for state of state contemplation term, as of that within the corporation, quasi-municipal it is a Since quasi-munici A used the constitution. public purposes, it is within the formed gov pal corporation of state is an arm the any legislature grant discretion of any separate and distinct from ernment by the prohibited powers, expressly its powers and rules of municipality, in constitution, purposes, further such territorial own, and fact that its the mere public power taxation. cluding encompass impinge may or boundaries organized is agency purposes for upon of a munic the territorial boundaries public general inures the benefit of city, part of ipality make it a does not may public charged ly, therefore the separate.10 powers for its are distinct general through taxation.6 such benefits apart separate and from agency is appellant’s claim reference to With yet is administered city government, and Act, pro procedures under this body responsible to the lo by legislature through posed, grant private benefits will cal electorate. County 11-19-25, No. Utah 1974. Area Laws of v. Beaver Service 7. 5. Carter One, 440 2d 399 P.2d 16 Utah 11-19-23.3, 25-35. 8. Id. (1965). 6. Footnote Conservancy Carbon Water 6. Patterick v. 256-257, Meiling, City 55, 71-72, v. Dist., 10. Lehi 87 P.2d 503 145 106 Utah (1935). (1944). P.2d 530 public use money, agency by question, we note that there on the statutes or may private be some is hard to to the benefits—it actions taken agency pursuant pro- imagine facility how a as the one th ereto.12 posed here be constructed without could What has been heretofore said private indi- conferring a benefit on some provisions about Act, objects its any benefit vidual or individuals—but purposes; agen nature of the private might individual inure to a cy inapplicable renders Mu Uniform through the construction nicipal Thus, Fiscal Procedures Act.13 pub- facility strictly incidental plaintiffs’ assignment sixth of error redevelop- purpose agency

lic without merit. ing blight. the area to terminate urban body being public The funds are used remains appellants’ to deal with e., public purpose, for a ur- i. terminate point 7,No. where it is claimed that the blight; ban they being given are not application retroactive of the Enabling Act private person, loaned ato nor are is in proper principles violation of of statu- primarily private purposes. used This tory construction. particular question was dealt with in Rede-

velopment Agency County Section 11-19-23 of that Act Hayes.11 permits Francisco v. San The court existing amendment of an re development plan, there said that the fundamental test of the and such amendment constitutionality requiring does separate the statute not create a new or redevel opment plan. public funds is whether the stat- In the hand, use matter at plan promote inter- designed statutory ute amended to include the public est, allocation as a means of opposed financing to the furtherance of the project. 11-19-29, individuals; advantage specifically pro Section and such a stat- redevelopment vides plan may ute should not be declared unconstitutional provision contain a that, for tax allocation “aft because of the incidental to fact ap er the effective date of the ordinance purpose, advantage main there results an *6 development proving plan.” the The term to individuals. “redevelopment plan” in 11-19-29(1) re Directing our attention now to plan, fers original redevelopment appellants’ that the of tax claim allocation and the effective date of the ordinance 5, es XIII, violates it Article needs Section creating plan the the base to establishes only to be said the law is well settled applied.14 is which the allocation formula powers that in exercising the of the state foregoing For the reasons we sustain the legislature may require the the revenue of decision of the and hold that the trial court municipality, by taxation, ap a be raised to Neighborhood Development is a plied Utah Act to than that for which the uses other course, power by is, exercise of state power Its of constitutional taxes were levied. limitations, legislature, proposed issue subject and that the to constitutional tax allocation specific no constitutional limi of revenue and here we see offended, constitutionally permissible. No or which are tation has been bonds which prohibits powers conferred expressly costs awarded. U.C.A.1953, 105, seq., 777, Cal.App.2d as amended. 125 P.2d 13. 10-10-23 et

11. 122 266 (1954). and 14. See of Cooper, County City, County Francisco v. Cal.Rptr. 267 Cal. San v. Salt Lake 42 (1968), App.2d (1913) ; McQuillin, where 557 72 P. 560 Utah 134 upon interpretation Municipal Corporations, based in a similar Rev. Vol. Sec statutory provisions. similar tion 4.140.

505 correctly states that “The TUCKETT, bond can J., concurs. holders

look to the revenues opera- from the tion of facility and opinion and the allocated taxes ELLETT, in J., concurs opinion of concurring in the also concurs

CROCKETT, J. There paradox is somewhat of a in this situation, plan because this appears to have spe- (concurring CROCKETT, Justice purpose been having devised for the cially). above, bonds fall within A so classification way ap- desirability a seeing they bonds, can be treated revenue and renovate prove plan salvage this general obligations city;1 Nevertheless, city is to be conceded. inner and at payment time same have the objective obligation make is our assured, part, by at least in bonds taxes application of the law analysis of the by levied city. and collected The fact make purpose I proposal, for ignored cannot support be that this from these observations: taxes is make more intended to the bonds be forth- proposition must salable and at a lower interest rate. proposed bonds is this: rightly faced plausi- argue, Plaintiffs not without one classifica- regarded as either should be bility, proper- theirs because and other A, “rev- they are either the other: tion or ty city subject any increased e., paid, bonds,” in- are to be i. which enue years, that, taxation in future unless principal, by and amortization of terest project property similarly taxed area or, project; the revenues derived from proportionate its bears share bonds, B, but are to they are not revenue increases, plaintiff’s be property will revenues, by and also financed bearing disproportionate share of by the imposed collected taxes to be burdens, city’s deprived financial and thus city. equal treatment under law. Where- clearly as, property under classi- out these bonds were defendants that the point If problem project declining there would be no area had been fication A> years; if fall But assessed value a number of no need of this lawsuit. questions re- project potential these that this has the B, under classification then plan sulting improvements area which whether confronted: private esti- city’s assessed valuation lending credit will enhance the VI, variously from Art. Sec. mated at million purpose, forbidden prop- Constitution, bonds that if dollars; con- million so whether base *7 city, erty pays and are thus the basis of the against the taxes on stitute a debt thereto, in- share applicable 1970, its fair governed year, bearing the laws it bewill XIV, 4, potential 3 Article city taxes, providing and the cluding of and Sections goes time Constitution, greater there need for a amount Utah whether much on. be bond election. amount that if it is the It seems obvious obliga- that bonds are The recital the project paid taxes on the in dollars community (the city) is not

tions of the of 1970, is year, which base property in the fact that the controlling. Neither is the on other down, as the taxes pegged then resolution, ap- and the the bond form bond (and years property subsequent in increase city so recite. is nec- proving ordinance such be that there will experience teaches beyond recitals to the essary those to look unjust discrimina- be increase) there will the char- arrangement to determine actual the of unequal against treatment tion opinion The main bond issue. acter of the 383, therein City Meiling, and authorities 994 2d 445 P.2d 48 v. 87 Utah Lehi See County, 530; 21 cited. v. Allen Tooele P.2d plaintiffs, bearing dispropor- who will be the (imposed taxes at the prevailing same city’s rate) tionate share of the mill tax burden. But which result from increased val looking picture, any in at the overall uation in project area, such go that will inequity may perhaps be minimized or finance the bonds.2 eliminated if it is taxation on the as- By payment this of taxes city’s into the proj- sessed valuation property of general fund, tax on the 1970 valuation of area, ect pegged which is down as of property in project area, on based and if the fair total assessed evaluation the prevailing mill rate for all prop- other taxation, in- subject any is including erty in the city, that area will paying be mill rate in subse- creased of taxes levied proportion same city of it taxes as quent years, the extra taxes and it is paid would have the project if had not generated increased amount from of been initiated improvement and no had tak- is year, that valuation over the base place. en This would seem to eliminate special diverted fund and used to into any inequity or against discrimination pay on the bonds. plaintiffs and payers; other tax and to If, when, roll in suc- the assessment serve the objective reversing desirable of years of ceeding shows amounts excess the trend of decreasing values moving limit, year the base then such amounts toward the property enhancement of values directly diverted exceed limit are to be with concomitant increase in tax sources to toward the retirement help bear the city burdens of the and inci- bonds, with together and this tax allocation dently plaintiffs pay- other tax anticipated opera- revenues from the similarly ers situated. facility tion of the will constitute major aspect other plaintiffs’ at- obligated the sole to retire revenues tack on this act and the creation of the bonds. Neighborhood Redevelopment Agency is that it violates importance

It seems to me in or Sec. 28 of Art. our VI of Utah Constitution problems prohibits delega- der meet raised which valid, any it tion plaintiffs, special power the act to be commission the herein, interpreted perform municipal must be as advocated or interfere with func- propositions: rejoinder based on these that for tions. Defendant’s is that purpose project it is act does not carrying entity. out create It au- itself, area thorizes city through the assessed valuation its Board Commissioners, property pegged down as of the agen- to form such an cy; year, base the amount dol agency and not that the control of mill, City Commission, people lars paid year-, taxes that that the levy, through control the may rate be in future Commission elec- whatever process, delega- tion years, apply val so there is no actual will to the actual assessed powers city tion project property year, uation of the each paradox seeming property agency.3 the same as This another to all other city; tread through the defendants must on the assessed valuation way After the above levy year current mill each rate caution. ½ the paid is in fact city’s general will into the tax assertion that the control *8 next (the ; Commission, they say in the taxing entities) only funds and it City Authority, financing Belovshy 2. v. This method is sometime called the 3. See 277; City v. Aurora “tax increment” doctrine. I think it A.2d But 54 Pa. 357 of correctly District, 149 112 should be more called the “valuation Colo. Aurora Sanitation Dickson, indicating doctrine, 662; City Whittier v. increment” that it is the P.2d of value, increase in taxed at whatever 151 P.2d 5. Cal.2d years, succeeding current tax rate is in special provides the fund to finance the bonds. Agency is in unilateral in objectivity, represents breath that the not fact the ap- parent city, separate quasi-municipal corpo- pressure blit obeisance to self-interest ration, groups, any is devoid of subject outcry by and therefore not the so- protestants, called statutory regulations and case constitutional and where both sides —a seem to furnish not imposed upon silage that restrictions cities. men, created some straw all of whom were points here are significant to note upon, killed, fired by burned and the dou- plan provide for nor that this does ble-barreled extinction, musket trig- of City im- contemplate can or will that gers pulled, of which by were one one levy, tax, mill pose any any increase or by side and one the other. purposes, or support Agency or its this Further, bonds. finance these this, Besides all consider I this case to impose collect power has no itself $15,000,000 be rip-off taxpayers’ of mon- therefrom only benefit any taxes, but its ey ordinarily that and constitutionally aside fund set special from the will be gone general have into the fund by the generated taxes increased from the owned City,— citizens of Lake Salt prop- valuation of assessed enhancement denied to them a somewhat rediculous does The act area. erty in the special two-hatted that commission statuto- per- way any in Agency to empower the rily plays musical chairs on an eccentric interfere City or any function form carousel, providing a vehicle for an insur- affairs. with its policy ance against liability, premium —the ex- herein paid by fee, ideas which is filing with the a small In accordance main large fee, attorneys’ taxpayer’s and a mi- supplementation pressed trial graine headache. in affirmance opinion, I concur declare refusing to judgment court’s I legislative am well ap- aware that after act unconstitutional. proval, lobbyist participation, municipal approbation, Commission may this dissent (dissenting). HENRIOD, Chief Justice be pres- anathema to some interests and are There 29, 1975). (July dissent I sures may “engineered” have this ad- among opinion differences minor some mittedly legislation,1 novel that seems to deci- wording of precise as to us planning, strategy, have had the timing and law be and will sion which wonted to be characteristic of The Great the members However, four case. Robbery. Train main harmony this Court effect is to opinion, which Someone, however, must advance at least judgment in its is affirmed trial court empathy a few observations in for the be- stat- “tax increment” holding the so-called taxpayer, who leaguered 1974), Laws of (Chapter ute economic, perhaps, legitimate, has a “Tax called should I think drama. quixotic also self-interest statutes titled Rebate Statute” Christiansen, so-called Neither Tribe nor Act,” ef- Development “Neighborhood empathy plaintiffs, showed constitutional. fective and represent. professed to group that each represents one case opinion, this my In be a said to Tribe is Neither testified. has no adversary proceeding, is not an “blighted” property the so-called controversy, is owner in justiciable as to character my knowledge, that, type even, Christiansen, of bond for Tribe Counsel type particular has been of bond opening first time this “These are bonds said statement his particular type, are somewhat authorized.” of a unique jurisprudence. This is to Utah *9 area,2 is an owner out were Watergated emphasized and and not Christiansen here respect with “blighted” legislation. area which the record fails to the I think really people that if “blighted” really to reflect is or was save had been aware of segment. legislation okayed by for a Their role as liti this court small gants universality rep opportunity it, had had an suggests a false to vote on litigation. by resentation in this Neither is have defeated thump- it the same action, ing again majority in the August mentioned two to one when 1974,- pleadings, rep a testimonially, or and neither then included and now being sponsored by resents nor of other a me thousands number of interests is being pressed City taxpayers, funding very and there under this legislation presented by smidgeon right evidence either which evades of suf- frage. litigants, of these obvious “convenience”

probative protestations their that: Way July back in Chapter By issuing selling Redevelop- Laws of passed, Spe- at a name, Agency good rep- ment Bonds the Session,3 cial started this litigation, —that utation, standing financial and credit —disarmingly called “Neighborhood rating injured the City will be and Development Program.” Everyone likes to damaged causing pay in- develop Neighborhood which means obliga- creased costs on all of its future homes, streets, and, nice a church possi- if plaintiffs taxpayers tions. The ble, maybe playground hopscotch or a required pay will be increased taxes area, rather than money-in- the instant municipal or suffer a decrease in serv- spired non-Neighborhood, but commercial ices because tax monies will be diverted program high hotels, banks, rise shoe paid stores, parking parking lots, meters and general instead of into the fund of the convenient Sheraton, Bank, Continental City. For these and for the other rea- Valley Bank, Bank, Bank, Zions Walker preceding sons stated in paragraphs Building, Kearns may et al. One call plaintiffs will suffer immediate and 20 acres commerciality Neighborhood irreparable injury damage for which if chooses, he when it is the choice of plaintiffs plain, speedy have no or ade- lobbyists law, special who wrote the in- quate remedy at law. legislation, promoting terests legis- that, happens opinion, so my these lators fancy, who fell for phoney mythical litigants right were dead phraseology, city commissioners who com- statement, foregoing wrong hut dead in mitted the courts, same sin and some in- sincerity pressing it or in cluding, opinion, in my this one. The way trying prove wholehearted it. however, thing, whole is but a snare and a legislature delusion. The

Having disagreed should my have confreres in case, amended the Title “The payers Commercial En- of the tax tithes are couragement Taxpayer Complex.” Funded know some of the facts le- entitled gal principles “Neighborhood” word “blight” is the should have been brought out, case, description. in this which I think its virtue or deliberately —not everyone nearly 2. Which includes such I think that institutions the Con- concedes Bank, passed may Bank, you legislation tinental Zions First when want be National Valley Trust, Broadway controversial, you Special, Bank & Ten Build- introduce it in a ing, Building, get Square launched, Kearns Arrow Press not a General Session to it Buildings, Capitol Theatre, get passed day, Bennett Glass on the last call it —and Building, Dinwoodeys, appetizing name, “Neighborhood” Paint all of which are such as Palace, Savings other, something bounded the Salt Zions Aid or “Children’s Pro- Bank, Beauty may gram” the new Main Street construc- called “CAP.” tion, Bank, Traey-Collins Trust, Walker Pru- Federal, dential and others. *10 Chapter 5, many places. In some features parking unorthodox so Presumably, emphasized, are as the same given American assurance would be to oth- —which apple as ers pie bought filled with who land Agency cherries. from the purposes. commercial trivia, Tightly wedged in melange it The says city step first in this legisla- that the commissioners would act momentous tion municipal passed was at purposes, special then such for swivel session that May 5, chairs around and real estate commenced on passed become 1969. It was brokers, money using taxpayers’ buy on the very day adjourned session sine die, without, property. recall, sell any exposure as I approval editorial been has evi- Furthermore, 5, Chapter in Section 9 of here, denced after the decision of this 1969, specifically Laws of it is said court approving it was announced. project area “A must be restricted to buildings, improvements or lands that are In 1970, legislature 5, in Chapter in a health, public detrimental or to the inimical less, Budget Session, no generally —which safety plaintiffs Both or welfare. and de- hides figures, with everything added anoth- quite quietly ignored simple, fendants this er cog continuing legislative machin- subjoined understandable interdiction. ery innocuous, that seemed to be but was sketch,4 by Tribe which was introduced not. It was enamored the Title: Christiansen, less, protesters no —the Development “Funds for Agencies,”-—an professed and plaintiffs, Injured taxpayers, apparent high legisla- commendable bit of objectionable is obviously probative aon tion, proved supplement but a according value basis and intended to the previous legislation, to the quietly giving testimony, “blight,” to show some kind Redevelopment power —and,—no objected clearly one it. development borrow money a kid- illustrate, however, seems to that at best less, homeless, churchless, teeter-totterless, any truth, “blight” and in this 20-acre lawnless, lot, parking macadamized not area questionably at best very amounts “neighborhood” all, at purpose for no other area, to not more than 20 or etc., 25% than kids, to accommodate not but an respon- and that hence this banks, assortment of Hotel Sheraton statutory sive to the interdiction that private enterprise, and other like stores area, must blight be restricted to the —and selling pants big men and X-rated not to an extended and additional 75 or taxpayers movies for little men. were unblighted, “going but commercial 80% ignored Budget Session, in this when the property obviously concern” is going legislature on January convened exclusively to be almost benefited. passed January 31, the act and ad- on journed 31, 1970, contradiction, Wall, January day on Mr. Without —same (or night), good taxpayers all while were Director of the Executive Develop- abed. The act Titled “Funds for Agency, indulged in a little testimo- sworn Agencies” paragraph ment consisted of double-talk, one when, juncture ny he at one suggesting thought, a most wholesome said all would be available everyone “development,” since likes general public on, equal and later con- —but purpose. its title its An almost Bank, belied viction said that Continental overlooked, hardly publicized neglected, parking facility, Valley Bank Main Street joker Community by in it “Each en- said been assured Hotel each Sheraton had admissibility, ' to establish author has foundation 4. Plaintiffs’ Exh. on which authenticity way liberty or au- tested for the claimed was in no to blacken taken $15,000,000 thorship allocation “blighted” tax the claimed and crosshatched areas Redevelopment Agency’s name at areas, was ob- where the Exhibit “substandard” —which subject suggests jected self-interest. one, some kind of the bottom no *11 desig- sion) as the body may redevelopment agency legislative actment community” everything!!! body nate Commis- transact legislative (the

5H taxpayers claiming represent mara- legislative all tax- in this step The next hap- payers has justify what thon, everywhere. They from almost in order case, act author- promptly performed another pened greatest disappear- etc., without parking, izing bonding ing act since Houdini lost his sawed-in- act for bond- This authority use taxes. They half replaced by woman. were two of the citizens. witnesses, consent ing require Wall, one of whom was a Mr. legiti- innocent import would be This of itself —an from Urban Renewal passed in the rush It also was Fargo, Dakota, mate. North —and adjourned. legislature very day guess *12 who: The Executive Director of Redevelopment Agency. Presumably, at course, act, payoff, The next least, partially he friendly must have been tag allocate tax- and just had to be one tax so-called increment bit and the development money for payers’ complex, meters which was re- promotion, commercial “Neighborhood” sponsible salary. Nonetheless, for his he by si- consent, slighting taxpayer without called, was aas hostile witness but as a suffrage I as- lence, precious right of that witness plaintiff dissidents. The relinquished had, now have we but for sumed witness, second this time decision. for in this unfortunate defend- ants, was none other than a Lake Salt Chapter 4, of Utah Laws The act was Commissioner who had voted to create the 1974, (another Budget Session), — —where Redevelopment Agency, and himself as one targets, prime matters are the fiscal —not committee, of its and Chairman thereof. matters constitutional highly controversial testimony praise His was unrestrained for This act slipped in from the basement. Thus, program. only two witnesses on passed in a session convened was Janu- testify called in this 1) whole case were 1974, February ary 14, adjourning 2) Executive Director and the Chair- legislation railroaded was on which area, man of the —none legisla- again through day on the same experience, my others. In one The adjourned, tradition of ture in the judicial history the rare cases Utah’s Robbery. Train Great virtually only ig- where not was law legislation. about So much for the Now nored, but where the adversaries each transcript testimony and of the record witness, cálled but which in combina- one challenging validity legislature. complete agreement harmony tion in complaint August filed in here was everything say had nice to about the new up objections set all the that a law, nothing derogatory, where nei- — —and good municipal attorneys firm bond subjected ther one was cross-examina- up could men be muster to set straw tion, and where counsel for both sides nev- creators, gunned only by down not their testimony er pages objected once in 72 adversaries, by but the creators’ was any testimony other’s of each witness. case here. palpably That why this case should have been legiti- thrown out of court for lack of opinion my protesters In both the justiciable mate that confrontation or it did declaratory judgment foes were of represent adversary proceeding an mind, appeared one and there be not repre- fraught taxpayer lack was even a David the crowd to take on the sentation, by spears highlighted rubber Goliath. in this flaccid combat. have con- We following chronology baffling: before, as is reflected demned such cases Tribe and Christiansen either lent or sold language of Backman v. their names to anybody, someone or liti- 2d 375 P.2d 756 County, 13 Utah gants, conspicuous since are ab- to do with (1962), having its citations They sence. were named in the com- plaint’s caption, Act, Declaratory Judgment as not page on its first were

being adversary opinions, nor jurisdictional requisite vehicle elements in ordi- policies nary against one to furnish insurance actions present, and judgment resolve doubts created in minds can rendered in a real controver- creating sy parties. those them: between Generally, adverse courts have held the conditions believe there We also that which must exist a declaratory before controversy rea justiciable no such judgment action can be maintained are: Bateman, Lyon particu sons stated v. justiciable (1) controversy; (2) larly portion requiring of the case adverse; parties interests of the must be parties interests of the must be “the party (3) seeking such relief must plaintiff pleaded adverse.” The that he legally protectible have a interest in the taxpayers suffer other controversy; (4) issues between expenditure money needless if of tax parties ripe ju- involved must be held, proved election were to be dicial determination.” constitutionally hearing abortive. At the In addition we call attention to our ob court, plaintiff before this counsel for servations v. Merkely State Tax Com commendably and candidly *13 that conceded relating subject. mission to this 11 Utah justifia was action instituted out 2d (1960). 358 P.2d 991 ble request concern and at the of a firm Wall, plaintiffs’, Mr. not defendants’ attorneys. candidly, eastern Just witness, made interesting some rather and plaintiff the upholding conceded that statements, sometimes startling constitutionality of the act this court —not support protestations of Tribe and hoped was for and desired. Christiansen, but highly favorable to de- fendants, any cannot see We how there could cross-examination —without whatever, adversary proceeding be a under and true without counsel for Tribe say and calling such circumstances. That not to Christiansen witness in- or troducing any proper that proceeding in a other than evidence to refute him. here, Concededly type might at he willing which evidence was T and C’s wit- made, findings be and against adduced mat position. ness their own Substan- incontestible, simply ter would tially, quite be and derogation of declarato- —but Declaratory that Act Judgments ry judgment concepts, he testified as fol- advisory opin designed giving lows: action, non-adversary ions in or to in a That respecting “blight” aspect against feared reaffirm sure risks. We case, (which had do wth an im- Bateman, language Lyon where v. 20-acre, area, loaded mense two-block with we said: banks, buildings boutiques), the and area taverns, private six one authorizing consisted of statutes courts club “While the virtue, declaratory parking garages, be of undefined two to render relief should claimed, provide “blighty” —obsolete or be- liberally construed order turning radius would not accom- prompt and cause settlements of controversies cars, relations, today’s longer gypsy two modate legal stabilize uncertain courts, nevertheless, phrenology shops (noted for their inherent operate must within statutory temporary occupancy), and one powers transient constitutional and company, a cafe as- imposed upon They manufacturing small them. duties upstairs, print pigeons supposed are for hear- to have to be a forum serted produced that ing shop, assay an office some rendering contentions academic shop, odors, cleaning an adult advisory opinions. In maintain chemical one order to relief, theatre, shops, an a Disabled Vet- declaratory plain- action two barber gallery, art Store, tiffs Thrift justiciable must show that the erans

513 parking support the hotel and whatever seems (This tenants.5 upstair some office Agency) So, they (the propose. else would 20-acre “blight” to have been keys really, the two were parking site). hotel; signed we now have contract redevelopment con- program He said Corporation Skaggs Drug use and

templated commercial continued agreeing property to sell to them.” 6 “possibilities.” residential some Mr. Wall also said: procedure Redevel The standard proposing agency “The Agency, said, opment he was to contact parking facility be built on the basis of a buildings, get two “blighty” owners of issue which would tax increment9 bond property value of their appraisals of the parking with the revenue amortised words, “It has amazingly, in his said: maintenance, operating after our practice our to make been offer flow to the tax increment top appraisal.”’7 To higher amount of Agency annual basis.” on an then generosity testified that he proposes oper- As to how the persons paid “relocation” costs to who facility, de- parking ate he said no automatically of at were the beneficiaries options yet cision has been made value, apprais highest least the full its—or employees, 2) own 1) to hire their paying price and relocation al. After However, Agency has assured lease it. costs, Agency then demolished the spaces Bank, Valley godsend property, must have been Mall, Parking 75 for for Main Continental prop corporation to him to which the or a testimony of the Executive Bank. The erty was slated for sale. Neighborhood Redevelop- Director of the *14 spoke words with Agency, ment who up the The costs June (of corroboration) tongue, doubtful forked administrative, prior years, including three that the parroted arguments the come-on legal, relocation, including planning and produce vast in- development project would $305,623 money, interest for borrowed was assumed (and in assessed valuation creases $1,152,563, if Tribe and Christian- —which increase in proved, a concomitant but not known, sen knew or should have should taxpayer, myth in going to the taxes —a them, have enervated if were con- quite seems contention case). Such taxpayers, seriously cerned to have consid- convincingly unconvinceable. procedure dismay. ered suicide or The income said, parking above, after all of the that the was to dis- is intimated he It supple- pose development, property of the in order Establish the pay to: would a wee bit priorities, advertise, implied, just proposals mented, might receive as The re- developers. from funds. priority taxpayers’ a con- (cid:127)by One was “allocated” complement vention and Christiansen’s hotel is Tribe Salt verse true. uses, estimated Palace8 or other necessary “and the 14 shows Exhibit No. own taxpayers infinitesimally compared generous 5. funds. Which were small use of erstwhile A area, which, “blighty” to the rest of the if may may a considered not be or 8. Which “nuisancy,” or could have been removed or gesture. “neighborly” suppressed by City, by ordinance and remedies, greater of one or more available concurring opinion suggested incre- 9. A dispatch, procedure with a court and about than rather increment “evaluation” ment was employment one week’s of a bulldozer and ball media advertised news The “tax” increment. so, compared in a or week as with the three obviously more suggestion. a It is this palatable word, four-year “Neighborhood or R.A. so-called Re- statute. used but never development” program through slithered may application, since “evaluation” It has no legislatures’ three four or comatose scenarios. up. may go The go “tax” down while nothing “tax,” increment 6. There is “evaluation” the record to reflect —but this, except complex levy. the Sheraton for tran- mill is based on the sients. sponsors, simply to arrive at a desired re- “Parking,” ten-year a over from revenues sult. commencing year would period $500,000 per year. average than not more say, City taxpayer, To as a money pledged to the taxpayers’ legally decision in this case $15,000,000, and the “Neighborhood” sound, morally be to immoralize and interest, sum bear creating that bonds language, circumvent constitutional our 7% above the represents, over and heritage, pres- American freedom of an annual taxpayers

$15,000,000debt affluence, sure from and contrariwise alone, outgo interest $1,000,000 debt politics, would immortalize afearment of input as is twice much pressures back-door, unregistered, un- .facility. This seems to from lobbyism disguised respectability, seen way the bonds. pediculous to retire abe stemming even from executive branch much bet- Robbery makes The Great Train government and other cultural and there fiscal sense because ter mathematical segments commercial community. pay com- passengers did not have since, quite disturbing This case is in my loot. interest larcenous pound on opinion, least, places stamp at ap- a proval only a sneaky, on rather dis- in this called other witness guised legislative process stalking and a above, at- called case, as was one stated tack concepts, on constitutional resulting in defendants, Neigh- Chairman of —the approves destruction. also Agency, who also borhood Rehabilitation trumped-up plaintiff lawsuit where the Commissioner, and voted for was victim, the hunter that his kills Agency, himself as member of the al- —that ready been has rendered unseemingly unconscious This circumstance Agency. illegitimate hunter’s kind but well- correctly established some well-oiled but placed trap, philos- logistically precedent departure political maneuvered —all official, game (representing while the cho- wardens ophy by enabling voted-in electorate) electorate, peaceful have lured as such been sen to vote vot- into valley temporary contendment, unaware- for another voted-in official ed-in official agency, namely, redevelopment him- ness of a Under the anesthetic inattention. — testimony parallel case, longer His somewhat taxpayers self. of this no have guarded, to, slightly more more lauda- referendum over the control decisions of *15 briefer, leg- expend in tory, municipal money and much favor cap- bodies to improvements islation. In the shortest cross-examination ital in area which arbi- $15,000,000 I in a tax- trarily “blighted,” have heard about is labeled whether it is payers’ blighted suit with a few other millions ad- or not. junct dedicated to a dedicated bu- thereto blighted, The area here involved was not reaucracy, counsel for Tribe and Christian- prime obviously property, but was attrac- sen, here, lethargic protestants asked: private capital, tive to risk so than —more “Commissioner, some benefit there will be Hilton, were cases when the Howard private property in owners of Johnson, Royal Inn, Square, Arrow Press area, “Yes,” said will there not?” and he addition, complexes adja- Utah Hotel all exposed

and that’s all! about That cent or in proximity, to close con- were plan. whole private capital structed with risk free of case, taxpayer participation. And that’s all there is to this Add to that —a proximity, Salt Palace two so- requirement veritable surrender of the these of a justiciable controversy for the determina- blighted obviously called are better areas rights. adversary gambles capital. tion of for such risk points original I think most made intends to by plaintiffs, Christiansen, $15,000,000 Tribe sell were bonds the tune taken, they provide park- ignored by well but were “parking.” Not will public over-sold repay- officials to even come close induce the ing ex- revenues penditure public questionable in bonds, highly funds all sorts of de- ing the velopment schemes, tax revenue adding the increased no voter whether control but with feat, liability voter accomplish especially developments if the can after produce fail to increased services the needed the costs revenues deduction and/or protec- bonds, taxes area, repay and fire police whether or not accommodation, public inducements tion, maintenance, are really health needed to private plop, enterprise stimulate project goes If the whole investments in etc. surety. “blighted” In the areas. taxpayer the ultimate taxpayer has lost the benefit meantime the capstone process the whole is the develop- increased taxes which the opinion of this court preceded that all that are pay those taxes ment would because was constitutional. The decision affirmed pay improve- instead off bonds on going by the court was decided in a case which public did have to finance to ments the really wasn’t a case—it was put up a job. development place, first attract companies Now bonding can sell Salt and, important, certainly did what is more City Lake “tax increment” bonds secure in opportunity not have the to cast its ballot. knowledge have on file a de- cision which legal, makes it all and secure remaining about the blocks the What knowledge that even if the tax in- City redevelop, $15,000,000 proposes to suffice, crement doesn’t taxpayers beginning. are at just here is There hook, on the anyway. proposed least more blocks redevel- opment program. under this In a case magnitude of this taxpayer concern, it significant seems plain- that the Performing While Center for Arts' tiffs here did not even timely bother to file complex sorely may be needed petition for rehearing, lending at least nonetheless, by margin, City, a two-to-one some substance to the credibility of this the voters 1974turned down bond ref- dissent. project. included such a It erendum which proposed again, the de- being now under However, cision of this case. with this technique, hereby

new ratified

court, fathers can avoid the vot-

ers, directly bonding, just by and move “blighted”

building it in a If area. “blight” tighter

definition of is no than case, ap- that used in the instant it would PEARCE, Disciplinary In re John D. ply anywhere almost to most the blocks Proceedings. that, City. may given in Salt Lake No. 13863. approve opportunity, the voters would *16 Supreme Court of Utah. project, presented them such a if it were Sept. 29, 1975. isolation, in- items without other This would cluded the 1974referendum. decent,

be the and constitutional democratic

solution, subterfuge without resort system

reflected instant case. The however, present case, removes

voters’ against obligation check they may not lend their sanction. inveigh

Powerful interests are free to now

upon politically possibly sensitive