Opinion ID: 2226504
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: the corporate purposes objection

Text: The 1948 annual appropriation and tax levy ordinances for the city of Chicago contained the following four items, Advertising bond and voucher calls, printing special assessment bonds and other expense in connection with special assessments, $1,000; For expense in connection with the proposed consolidation of passenger and freight terminals; to be expended upon authority of the City Council, $25,000; Expense in connection with the Housing Center, $5,000; For payment of expense in regulating, controlling and stabilizing rents in housing accommodations; to be expended upon authority of the City Council, $100,000. Objection No. 3 is that these items are not for corporate purposes and are not properly itemized. Corporate purposes for which taxes can be levied by a municipal corporation are only such as are germane to the objects of the creation of the municipality or have a legitimate connection with those objects and a manifest relation thereto. ( People ex rel. Illinois Armory Board v. Kelly, 369 Ill. 280; Kocsis v. Chicago Park Dist. 362 Ill. 24.) The first item, advertising and printing expense in connection with special assessments, is clearly a proper corporate expense. The applicable statute (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1951, chap. 24, par. 84-94,) expressly states that expenses of this type shall be paid by the municipality out of its general corporate fund. The objection to this item should have been overruled. The collector concedes that under our decision in Ambassador East, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 399 Ill. 359, the fourth item was not for a corporate purpose. The corporate authorities of the city of Chicago have power to regulate the use of the streets and other municipal property (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1951, chap. 24, par. 23-10); authority incident to local transportation problems (chap. 24, par. 23-28.1); power to regulate fire hazards (chap. 24, par. 23-72); and, in addition, power to pass and enforce all necessary police ordinances (chap. 24, par. 23-105). We are of the opinion these grants of power afford ample authority for the modest appropriation incident to the proposed consolidation of passenger and freight terminals in Chicago, an improvement which obviously would promote the enumerated corporate objectives. The city of Chicago has been granted power to acquire by purchase, condemnation, or otherwise, real property necessary or appropriate for the rehabilitation or redevelopment of any blighted or slum area. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1951, chap. 24, par. 23-103.1.) The challenged housing appropriation is reasonably related to express corporate purposes of the city of Chicago. The objection to the item of expense in connection with the Housing Center was improperly sustained. The taxpayer contends, in the alternative, that the last two appropriations are not sufficiently itemized. Itemization requirements must be accorded a practical and commonsense construction; it is not necessary to state each purpose for which a tax is levied where each purpose is properly embraced in one general designation, particularly where it is difficult to determine, in advance, the precise amount of the several items. ( People ex rel. Toman v. Estate of Otis, 376 Ill. 112.) The appropriations were sufficiently itemized.