Laserfiche WebLink
80 <br /> <br />Page 2 -- October 25, 2003 <br /> <br /> Rezoning -- Power plant offers to build new high school if rezoning permitted <br /> Lower court finds $8 million offer invalidates ordinance <br /> M, '.ai~SACI4%J'SETTS (08/15/03) -- [DC Bellingham LLC asked the town of <br /> BelT~gham to rezone a parcel of land so a power plant could eventually be <br /> built upon it. <br /> Town officials asked [DC what public benefits and financial inducements <br /> IDC might offer the town with regard to the proposed plant. The town admin- <br /> istrator told EDC the town was facing an $8 million shortfall in its plans to <br /> construct a much-needed new high school. Soon thereafter, IDC announced it <br /> would make an $8 mithon donation if it received the necessary permits and <br /> operated the plant successfully for one year. <br /> Eight landowners near the proposed site sued. They argued the gift was <br /> offensive to public policy because it was not offered as being in mitigation of <br /> the project's impacts. ' <br /> The court ruled in favor of those opposed to the project, concluding the $8 <br />million offer was an extraneous considerat2on impermissibly given for reasons <br />other than mitigation. <br /> tI)C appealed. <br />DECISION: Reversed. <br /> The zoning decision should not have been set aside simply because of the <br />$8 million ~ft. <br /> In general, there was no reason to invalidate a legislative act on the basis of <br />an extraneous consideration. A court should not invalidate an otherwise valid <br />zoning enactment simply because it was prompted or encouraged by a public <br />benefit voluntarily offered. <br /> The proper review of a zoning enactment was whether it violated state law <br />or constitutional provisions; was arbitrary or unreasonable; or was substan- <br />tially unrelated to the publ/c health, safety~ or general welfare. <br /> In the absence of any problem other than the existence of a voluntary offer to <br />make a gift to the town at some time in the future when the power plant became <br />operational, k was perfectly appropriate for the town to pass the contested <br />ordinance. There was no evidence the town bargained away its police power in <br />malting the decision. The town merely acted on an offer by [DC; its power to <br />approve or reject the proposed rezoning remained unencumbered, as did its <br />power to rezone the property in the future if circumstances made it necessary. <br />Citation: Durand v. [DC Bellingham LLC, Supreme Judicial Court of <br />Massachz~serzs, No. SJC-08942 (2003). <br />see also: Dacy v. Ruidoso, 845 P. 2d 793 (1992). <br />see also: Kerik v. Davidson Count, 55I S.E. 2d 186 (20Of). <br /> <br />First Amendment -- Property, owner posts large signs protesting tax valuation <br />Signs criticize local o)'~ciats <br /> <br />IOWA (09/03/03) -- Ecldes bought a house in 1987 for $14,000. lEckles' <br /> <br /> <br />