Opinion ID: 1189149
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Was the land exchange an abuse of discretion?

Text: The parties agree that Anchorage had discretion to enter into land exchanges, and that a reviewing court has the authority to decide whether or not Anchorage abused this discretion. Norene argues that since there were a variety of factual errors in the information supplied to the Assembly by the municipal administration regarding the land-swap, the Assembly's decision to consummate the land swap constitutes an abuse of discretion. [1] Anchorage responds that, given the information presented by the municipal administration, the Assembly did not act arbitrarily. While Norene may take issue with the wisdom of the Assembly's judgment, Anchorage argues in light of the facts as presented to the Assembly, no abuse of discretion took place. Implicit in Anchorage's argument is the further contention that it is the Assembly's exercise of discretion which this court should review and not that of the municipal administration. We agree with Anchorage's position. According to McQuillin, where a local legislative body has power to determine the expediency or necessity of measures relating to local government, its judgment upon the matters within the scope of its authority cannot be controlled by the courts. [2] As we stated in Concerned Citizens of South Kenai Peninsula v. Kenai Peninsula Borough, 527 P.2d 447, 452 (Alaska 1974): It is not a court's role to decide whether a particular statute or ordinance is a wise one; the choice between competing notions of public policy is to be made by elected representatives of the people. With these considerations in mind, we hold that the superior court appropriately granted summary judgment on this issue. Appraisers informed the Assembly that the land exchange was financially sound, and the Assembly was made aware of the problems with the properties it was acquiring. Varying estimates of the value of the land it was giving up were before it. The Assembly decided to rely on one estimate and disregard others. Consideration of such factors is for the Assembly, not the courts.