Opinion ID: 1538681
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Public purpose when industry already under orders to construct facility

Text: Wilson points out that in this instance the Company was under orders to install this equipment. He argues that this fact negates a finding of public purpose for the issuance of these revenue bonds. We do not see it that way. It is conceded that pollution abatement equipment is very expensive. It likewise is conceded that without present environmental concerns the pollution abatement equipment would not have been installed. The trial judge made findings of fact that these facilities will in no way increase the productive capacity of the plant, decrease the cost of the plant or increase the efficiency of the plant in any respect and that the construction of these facilities generates no benefit to Westvaco or to Westvaco's stockholders or creditors since it consumes an enormous amount of capital and requires heavy expenditures for maintenance and operation and yet provides no increase in income or reduction in cost. There was evidence adduced to support those findings. They are not disputed. However, whether benefit will accrue to Westvaco or to Westvaco's stockholders or creditors is not a critical factor. What is critical, as we see it, is use of the concept that oftentimes more co-operation can be obtained toward reaching a given goal by the use of persuasion rather than coercion. It has been said that more flies can be attracted with a sweet substance than with vinegar [1] and that [t]here are more ways of killing a cat than choking her with cream. [2] We understand the combined effect of the Act, the action of the County Commissioners, and the tax advantages permitted pursuant to applicable federal statutes and regulations, which we shall hereafter discuss, were intended to be an implementation of that philosophy. We see no impropriety in the use of this approach. It does not in our view negate a finding of a public purpose for the issuance of the bonds.