*1 body marijuana whose fluids, while those in their metabolites of marijuana legally can be. sanctioned use is legislative does test, classification Under the rational basis deny protection equal a direct relation bears if the classification supra, legislation. City purpose Watson, Atlanta of (2) (422 Long Resources, 262 Ga. 506 187; Mtn. Ga. at Nix v. relationship light the statute between In of the rational (see safety 2, legitimate Division and the supra), marijuana legally-used fact that the effects marijuana, illegally-used indistinguishable arewe from the effects legal legislative between users of distinction unable to hold that the safety purpose directly illegal marijuana related to and of the Accordingly, legislation expounded in Division 2. which we arbitrarily drawn, statute distinction is we conclude that the equal protection. denial of is an unconstitutional holding light 3, need not address in Division we 4. In of our (a) (6) appellant’s violates due contention that OCGA cess of law. except

Judgment concur, Sears, J, who reversed. All the Justices only as to Division 3. in the concurs 1, 1999 Decided June July 30, 1999. denied Reconsideration appellant. Towne, Clark, R. for Towne, E. Jessica Clark & David Gary Jeffrey Blaney, Kwiatkowski, Solicitor, S. Jr., P. Gerald N. Assistant Vey, appellee. Solicitors, et al. v. DEVELOPMENT

S99A1141, S99A1142, S99A1281. HANEY cases). (three al. OF BREMEN et AUTHORITY 665) (519 SE2d Presiding Justice. Fletcher, sought Authority mil- to issue $7.2 of Bremen public golf in an industrial course to finance lion in revenue bonds park sixty-five residents hundred Bremen. Two project. oppose validated The trial court the bonds intervened the bonds and related intervenors to documents and ordered and costs bond to cover a million and abused does not authority might court the trial Because incur its discretion judg- promote commerce, we reverse trade, validating confirming revenue bonds. the issuance authority purchased 1979, In land for 400 acres of an indus- money park. purchase issuing purchase *2 November filed court for Turkey validation of revenue bonds to finance the Creek Golf Course Project. golf public course, The includes an 18-hole club building, pro shop, practice putting greens, house, and maintenance driving range. authority proceeds pay The use the to the will bond golf city design notes, debt on its 1979 the costs of the construction issuing authority course, and the costs of the bonds. The private management company employ intend to hire a that will golf operate project’s the it is If the course once constructed. operating pay expenses operat- revenues are insufficient for the golf bonds, the the debt service on the the is obli- gated pay both. validating

After the trial court its order entered the contracts, bonds and the intervenors their announced intention appeal authority petition requesting filed a post intervenors a bond under the Public Act.1 The Lawsuits delay appeal court found that the issuance of the bonds and prevent completing golf retiring from course and explaining 31,1999. the notes due on December its to Without the basis for figure, it ordered the intervenors to a million potential costs, revenues, cover increased lost losses The bond, intervenors did and their appeal by operation was dismissed of law under OCGA 50-15-2. judg- S99A1141,

In the intervenors from the validation challenging authority’s power ment, to finance and construct a operate course and the means and method used finance project. they S99A1142, from the order surety bond.

S99A1142, S99A1281. BONDS IN LAWSUITS PUBLIC gives 1. The Public Lawsuits Act courts the any party opposes public improvement project a bond of who in a public protect The lawsuit. of the act is to from by filing increased financial costs caused or non-meritorious litigation against project.2 frivolous OCGA 50-15-1 See 1969 Ga. Laws 816. years ago, Although never inter- the act has been enacted permits any political by preted codified, the act court. As petition a court order that lawsuit to subdivision they post opposing party unless a bond.3 intervenors be dismissed or any “political or local defines a subdivision” body right A lawsuit” is issue bonds. with the to sue or opposes any questions construction, “the or defined as action leasing any public improvement, improvement, financing, or including, facility by any political ject, but not subdivision declaratory judgments injunctions or inter- to, actions for limited ventions.” may appeals, requirement but be is not limited to

imposed by it that a bond would the trial court whenever determines public’s interest. hearing petition cause,

If, on the order to show at the so, that it is in the interest to do the court determines by filed the court shall set the amount of bond to be opposing party parties in an amount found or intervenors damage accrue the court to cover costs opposition political reason of the to the intervention in the event the subdivision prevails.4 *3 party days by operation opposing order, If ten of an no bond is filed within may appeal law, but intervenor shall be dismissed stay appellate the lower court order. The order, courts have the modify filed, order, or enter a the lower court set the bond to directs trial and courts final order. OCGA 50-15-3 both public give expeditious lawsuits, and 50-15-4 consideration to subject filing matter actions related to the same hibits other after a lawsuit is commenced. statutory “political the terms sub-

Given the broad definitions of provisions “public lawsuit,” we conclude that the division” apply proceedings under the Revenue Bond Public Lawsuits Act development subdivisions Law.5The with the right bring defend actions or to issue bonds or other proceed- obligations indebtedness; validation evidence of the bond as prevent ing in have intervened to is an action which residents improvement project. financing of a the construction appeal, the trial court abused we must determine whether 2. On surety a million its discretion in the intervenors to See OCGA 50-15-2. 4 Id. See OCGA 36-82-60 to correctly bond.6The issue is whether the trial court was in the proceeding.7 that it concluded interest” this validation construing legislative term, this we must consider the intent passing protect in the the Public Lawsuits Act.8The bill was enacted “to from financial due to non-meritorious or frivolous litigation.”9 any against public project Thus, while lawsuit filed legislature costs, increase its the act makes clear that discourage challenges intended to frivolous or non-meritorious public purse any harm Here, their offsets benefit. the whether the concerning intervenors have raised meritorious claims proposed governmental requirements contracts meet the constitutional for inter- subject

contracts that are not to the constitutional proposed golf debt clause and whether the course is a promotes development industry, employ- trade, commerce, opportunities required under the constitution and statute. requir- Therefore, we hold that the trial court abused its discretion proceeding. the intervenors to S99A1141. VALIDATIONOF THE REVENUE BONDS permits development 3. The Constitution the creation of development industry, authorities.10 “The employment opportunities being public purpose vital welfare Assembly may state, of this the General . . . authorize [a development] authority by any county municipali the creation of ty.”1 permits legislature exempt The constitution further authority’s property and income from taxation and to allow authori constituting ties to issue revenue bonds without the bonds a provision, Assembly “debt.” Based on this constitutional the General enacted the Authorities Law.12 The law states that its promote employment is to public good general for the welfare.13Towards (498 728) Oatman, (1998); See Ebon State, Foundation v. 269 Ga. 340 Hardin v. 669) *4 (1983); Reid, 251 Ga. (307 533 SE2d Reid v. 246 Ga. 592 SE2d 7 interpretation Because we reverse the bond order based on our interest,” we need not setting address whether the trial court erred in at three mil authority’s lion dollars based on the evidence of and costs. 8 See OCGA 1-3-1. § 9 815, 1969 Ga. Laws 816. 10 Const, EX, VI, para. See Ga. art. sec. III. 11Id. 12 (1993); See OCGA 36-62-1 to 36-62-13 see also Odom v. Union Downtown Dev. (305 110) (1983) Auth., 248, 251 (Development Ga. 252 SE2d Authorities Law enacted to III). IX, implement VI, Paragraph Article Section 13 § See OCGA 36-62-9. authority may money end, and issue revenue bonds borrow purchase, acquire, purchase park or or con land for an industrial project.14 struct proposed public golf question here whether the course is statutory projects §

meets the There are two ing graph private definition of OCGA 36-62-2 paragraphs on court relied in conclud- industry. promoted project Para- (H) (i) “sports including “project” facilities, defines include training facilities autho- and related office other when authority governing or munic- rized facility ipal corporation in which the is to be constructed and main- (N), provision Paragraph tained.” the final catch-all the definition project may “any projects, provides industrial, for that a com- parking, public, mercial, business, office, or other use” where the public pur- furthers “the essential resolves employ- pose development opportunities.” Construing projects, list of we conclude that the act’s golf “sports facility” permitted paragraph posed course is not a under (H).15 paragraph sports facilities, lists convention and Besides trade show facilities and hotel and motel facilities that structed ties.16As used in the con- sports, convention, with or trade show facili- connection “sports statute, term refers to facilities” professional for stadium, coliseum, arena, or similar structure used large-scale competitive sporting entertainment and events. events and other youth ballpark, complex, swimming It does mean a tennis designed primarily provide pool, golf or recreational course that is taxpayers.17 residents and local golf comes within the constitution’s Whether the (N) development paragraph paragraph or the law’s on authorities legislative history, Relying previously question. we have closer provide provision author- concluded that the constitutional does every project ity and trade in this state finance commerce 14 See OCGA 36-62-6. 275) (1981) (hold Authority, Day Development 489-490 Cf. 248 Ga. stores, stores, grocery projects did not include other retail that act’s definition of retail endeavors). fast food and similar restaurants (3) (8) (1976) (defining project “any & to include enter Cf. Code Ann. S.C. tourism, business, including sports and facili prise engaged recreational in commercial parks, parks, his “property used ... in connection with theme amusement ties” which mean torical, museums, centers, spectator participatory sports educational or trade cultural facilities, beaches, facilities, marinas, bathing public, including... generally available arenas, auditoriums”), Riley, courses, theaters, quoted in Ducks v. 354 SE2d 1987). (S.C. (giving corporations municipal to issue revenue See fairways”). constructing “golf acquiring links and bonds *5 408 Develop- use.18 v. Union Downtown

that serves Odom improve proposed project streets, held ment construct a we that a to Authority,19 existing city designed hall, and was renovate hall governmental fulfill and not the defi- to functions thus did fit within industry.20 Although commerce, trade, nitions of argued project permissible in that case that the was it would provide employment opportunities opera- its construction and interpreted general “employment opportunities” tion, we term directly opportunities resulting mean industry from the that financed.

Similarly, Development Authority proposal of Bremen’s public golf designed gov- construct an 18-hole ernmental function of area residents.21 course is to fulfill the

providing recreational and services to facilities Despite charging attempt an admission fees in operating expenses project service, cover its traditional business meet court’s conclusions that are the and debt is not a

enterprise profit not conducted for and thus does trade, the definition of a or commerce. The trial “golf” “industry” “sports facilities engines economy” of drive the some do communities particular proposal public golf mid-priced not transform this community project course to serve the local into a commercial economy. will stimulate the Bremen area Nor does the fact privately-managed facility park is located in an industrial jected employ employment opportunities 25 create industry by contemplated trade or as the statute.22 Turkey Project Therefore, we hold that the Creek Golf Course Georgia violates both Constitution and the Author- public pur- ity pose facility sports Law because it is neither a nor for the developing industry. Because of this holding, we need not decide the intervenors’ other contentions intergovernmental related to the contracts.

Judgment except Carley, concur, J, reversed. All the Justices who dissents. 18 490; Day, Financing Georgia, See 248 Ga. at State State 253 766 Ga. 19 251 Ga. 248. 20 (defining “practically every See id. at 254 occupation commerce and trade as profit” business “industry” “any department art, carried on for subsistence or as or branch of occupation, profit.”). or business conducted as a means of or for livelihood (1993) (giving municipal corporations See power acquire, con struct, operate parks, courses, grounds); and recreation see also to 36-64- (1993) (permitting maintain, develop, parks, play operate cities and counties to facilities). centers, grounds, recreation and other recreational Odom, (finding relationship See employment Ga. at 255 between speculative tangential jobs too when were not the result trade

industry directly by authority). financed Justice, dissenting. Carley, of the trial judgment

I reversal majority’s dissent its the trial court abused discre- court because I do believe that bond, provided ordering appellants tion the bond requiring An affirmance of OCGA 50-15-2. did since appellants would result in a dismissal of Therefore, I not address the mer- the bond the trial court. set which has law. by operation its been dismissed (PLA) Act the Public Lawsuits majority’s analysis, Under unless the liti- the trial court from prohibits *6 if this is frivolous non-meritorious. Even construc- gation clearly the outset of the law- tion of OCGA 50-15-2 would be reasonable at suit, trial has its apply it where the court rendered should If merits of there is an underlying litigation. decision on the the in the political of the trial court’s final favor of sub- appeal moves, division the so the trial court must political subdivision “in the interest” to then determine whether it is during majority’s the con- supersedeas appeal. Contrary bond clusion, I a trial court abuses its discretion do not believe that PLA some of the granting simply an bond under the appeal Once a court has claims asserted meritorious. trial ruled appear case, it is the trial court from prohibit the merits of the anomalous may court rule requiring appellate an bond because an later appeal if, the provides hearing, The statute that after trial court differently. in the the of a bond “is posting supersedeas determines that interest,” to cover all damage it “shall set amount of bond ... costs reason of may political accrue to subdivision prevails.” intervention the event OCGA (Emphasis 50-15-2. supplied.) case, already trial and rejected court has examined Therefore, must have court consid- appellants. claims of appellate

ered the to lack merit. The fact that an court claims has found none does not mean later find merit where trial court appeal an bond. that trial court abused its discretion that a trial court majority today effectively I believe holds it an bond always requires its discretion when abuses Thus, in the is frivolous. absence clearly lawsuit which courts of hereafter further legislation, a trial court every requir- each and order of required second-guess pursuant an litigant an unsuccessful an approach I such OCGA 50-15-2. Because believe statute, to the reversal I dissent interpretation unreasonable appellants order requiring trial court’s pendency July 8, 1999 Decided July 30, 1999. Reconsideration denied Whalen, Mullins & III, Andrew J. Maurer, Whalen Jacob A. appellants. Attorney, Tallapoosa Osborne, James R. District Circuit, Jack F. Witcher, Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, Williams, White & Richard N. Hubert, appellees. McRae, Daniel M. Pitcher, F. Griffith It notes trial to the financed paid 31, sellers, 1999. After which must be December envi- regulations ronmental made the land unsuitable industrial devel- constructing opment, year proposed last pay generate revenue to off the notes. petition superior was