The Idaho Supreme Court has handed down its decision in Rexburg v Hart. This is a long-awaited urban renewal agency decision which determined that Idaho’s urban renewal agencies are not the alter-egos of the cities. It appears this decision affirms a finding in a much earlier Supreme Court decision (Boise Redevelopment Agency v. Yick Kong) that, “While the particular city may trigger the existence of the [urban renewal agency], it cannot control its powers or operations.”
November 25, 2009
Idaho Supreme Court Decision
11 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I wonder about the impact this will have on the operation of LCDC. Will Deanna and Al continue as board members? How will this impact LCDC’s use of city equipment and personnel? Will LCDC have to reimburse the city for those past expenses? Will LCDC have to utilize FOIA requests for documents as are the members of the public?
Comment by Susie Snedaker — November 26, 2009 @ 12:36 pm
So, this decision made because municipalities are not really part of Constitutional Law? Our constitution does not apply to cities?
Several years ago, I used a mediation program that was available to me when I lived in the city of Tulsa, Oklahoma. This was a program where you could ask for mediation through voluntary actions and the city subpoenaed the entities you wanted to mediate with for 5 dollars. In this case it had to do with the criminal deprivation of my children of which Tulsa, OK folks were shocked. When the state was served, Wasden called them up like a screeching hyena claiming Tulsa had no jurisdiction because the voluntary mediation was filed within the city – claiming it was a municipality. Wasden was a bit of a fool because he did not even have to call – if he had read, he would have known that it was voluntary, but he was obviously nerved because the state was served. With that aside, it is unconstitutional to deprive parents and children from their relationships. My point? Idaho influentials protect themselves and those like them. A case like Rexburg vs Hart needs to be fought to the federal level, and unfortunately, folks do not have the time, money, or stamina to muck through the sludge. ‘They’ count on that.
Also, it appears to be a case of semantics using “alter egos” as some sort of legal basis that urban renewal agencies are not an acting form of shadow government. So, with this in mind the only recourse is our vote, which might not be constitutionally executed.
I know as a private citizen this URD stuff is shoved down our throats without recourse through our elected city officicals and I know from experiece, that the muncipality argument in Idaho is their cop out.
Concluding that the lawsuit is frivolous is only a warning to those who may pursue further challenges. If our city officials are acting out of control of the legislature, then who has oversight over their actions if the people don’t? Our legislators need to fix this mess, but I doubt they will, too many will gain from those who benefit from this type of government arrangement.
Comment by Stebbijo — November 26, 2009 @ 5:11 pm
Stebbijo,
The Court ruled the suit was not frivolous. If it had ruled otherwise, Hart would have been paying attorneys’ fees to the defendants.
I’m not sure there is any federal issue to be raised. As I read the decision, this Court was upholding Yick Kong and not really breaking much if any new ground at all. It looks as if a city council can lawfully create an urban renewal agency, and it can remove commissioners for cause as spelled out in the statutes, but the city cannot really get involved in the URA’s operations. That makes Susie’s questions even more valid: Shouldn’t a URA have to be totally independent from the City both operationally and financially? No more using City staff and equipment on projects unless the City is compensated fully by the URA. Otherwise, tax money appropriated by the City for City use is being used to subsidize and even fund an agency that is supposedly not an alter-ego of the City. The URA can’t very well say it’s not the alter-ego of the City and then use money appropriated for the City’s own use.
Comment by Bill — November 26, 2009 @ 5:46 pm
Bill,
My mistake – big mistake. I see the terminology now in the word, “agency.” That is a good thing that that it was not ruled frivolous. One more reason I am not a lawyer and cannot afford one. 🙂 I have to admit this city stuff is not easy to understand. I guess I am hooked on the municipality argument. I do know that Article 1 of the Idaho Constitution is clear in it’s pursuit of happiness so maybe I am stuck on that as well, trying to understand where municipalities have jurisdiction over that Article.
Comment by Stebbijo — November 26, 2009 @ 6:04 pm
Okay, I am happy about this. After reading this more – I see where Hart won the municipality argumnent.
Comment by Stebbijo — November 26, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
Susie’s question seemed to help me understand the ruling a bit better…..I think.
Tell me if I am right in regard to our local situation…..The urban renewal district governance was intended not to be the “alter ego” of the city government. This would suggest that the revenues from the two taxing entities should be separate. (in a real world!)
Therefore, if one can prove that LCDC is funding projects as the “alter ego” of the city then there is a violation. That city councilmen are on the LCDC Board could indicate a violation of the “alter ego” limits. City taxpayers money, not collected by LCDC taxation, used for LCDC purposes, could indicate that LCDC is the “alter ego” of the city council.
Am I thinking clearly? It seems that either the courts or the legislature need to get this straight. Otherwise the financial impact of LCDC can multiply as the City revenues are directed to helping LCDC.
What a monster this Urban Renewal Law has created! Abuse of power and taxation without representation. Is this the United States?
Comment by citizen — November 27, 2009 @ 8:34 am
What impact will this have on the city giving park properties, usually a condition for subdivision approval, to the Parks Foundation? The action(s) of the Parks Foundation and LCDC also bring forth a number of questions.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — November 28, 2009 @ 7:58 am
Susie,
What connection do you see between this Court decision about urban renewal agencies and private foundations like the Parks Foundation?
Comment by Bill — November 28, 2009 @ 8:13 am
I’m guessing that Susie sees the Parks Foundation used as a clearing house for the comingling of funds and projects between the city and the LCDC. The Mayor seems comfortable funneling funds through that foundation for any of her projects knowing full well in advance exactly where the money/assets are destined and why.
Comment by Wallypog — November 28, 2009 @ 11:23 am
Well said, Wallypog.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — November 28, 2009 @ 5:19 pm
The termination date of the LCDC is another interesting aspect. Why even end it if it was such a swell idea? Could it be that the “powers that be” realized that the city doesn’t own the Spokane River and that all of the new development puts it into a serious conflict with rapidly escalating federal clean water requirements? That they realized that the sewer treatment plant would be shut down by the feds and that all development would stop until a regional treatment facility [costing hundreds of millions] could be built? And that knowing that would occur [as they happen to know the dismal stats from the sewer treatment plant now] they needed to get all the money harvested ASAP before the BIG SHUTDOWN?
Naaaa….they couldn’t be THAT duplicitous.
Comment by Zapatista — December 5, 2009 @ 8:54 am