Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Harry L. Newby, Jr. <br />page 7 <br /> <br />respect to r~asons a local unit of government may disapprove an <br /> <br />organization's application. <br /> <br />Impliedly, the local unit of <br /> <br />government can develop certain criteria upon which to base the <br /> <br /> <br />governing body's decisions to approve or reject applications by <br /> <br /> <br />organizations wishing to conduct lawful gambling in the <br /> <br /> <br />jurisdiction. Failure to do so could result in claims that <br /> <br /> <br />actions by the governing body are arbitrary and capricious. <br /> <br />The City of Cloquet, though lacking the authority to <br /> <br />license organizations to conduct lawful gambling pursuant to <br /> <br />Chapter 349, has been given the authority to deny an application <br /> <br />under Section 349.213, subd. 2. Again, it is well-settled that a <br /> <br />i <br />local unit of government may not act arbitrarily in denying an <br />I <br />application for a license. See,~, State ex rel. Ratner v. <br />I <br />City of Minneapolis, 164 Minn. 49, 204 N.W. 632 (1925). Given <br /> <br />, <br />what is contemplated by the City of Cloquet, namely, limiting <br />, <br />I <br />lawful gambling to local organizations, possible violation of the <br />i <br />equal protection clause of the state and/or federal constitution <br />, <br /> <br />must be considered by the city. See,~, Const. & Gen. Lab. <br /> <br />Union Local 563 v. Citv of St. Paul, 270 Minn. 427, 134 N.W.2d <br /> <br />, <br />I <br />266 (1965); Berq v. City of Minneapolis, 274 Minn. 277, 143 <br /> <br />N.W.2d 200 (1966). <br /> <br />Resolution of the reasonableness of such restrictions as <br /> <br />related to the asserted local purposes, however, calls for <br /> <br />factual and policy determinations that are generally beyond the <br /> <br />scope of our opinions. Thus we are not in a position to <br /> <br />~ <br />