Opinion ID: 2060173
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Does ch. 234, Stats., involve the state in works of internal improvement, in violation of art. VIII, sec. 10, Wisconsin Constitution?

Text: Art. VIII, sec. 10, Wisconsin Constitution, provides: ... The state shall never contract any debt for works of internal improvement, or be a party in carrying on such works; ... We have determined that ch. 234, Stats., does not create a debt in violation of art. VIII, secs. 4 and 7, nor constitute a pledge of the state's credit in violation of art. VIII, sec. 3, nor compel payment of state funds in violation of art. VIII, sec. 2, of the Wisconsin Constitution. The question remains as to whether the provisions of ch. 234 make the state a party in carrying on works of internal improvement within the contemplation of the Wisconsin Constitution. We are of the opinion it does not. In resolving this issue, the valid legislative declaration contained in sec. 1 of ch. 287, Laws of 1971, and set forth in detail in our discussion of the issue of public and statewide purpose is of particular significance. In summary, this declaration determines that there exists in rural and urban areas of the state a seriously inadequate supply of and a pressing need for safe and sanitary dwelling accommodations for families and persons of low and moderate income, including elderly persons, and those displaced by clearance of slums and blighted areas, and other public programs; that the shortage of such housing is inimical to the safety, health, education, morals and welfare of the residents of the state and the growth and development of its communities, including schools, public transportation, public utilities, sources of employment and service essential to the orderly growth and prosperity of the state and its communities; that present patterns of financing limit the ability of private building and investment industry to produce, without assistance, the needed construction; and that local authorities alone cannot meet this housing need. These legislative determinations are supported by the record. State ex rel. Martin v. Giessel, supra , presented the consideration of a legislative enactment distinctly different from that in the instant case. In Giessel, the state appropriated $8,000,000 as a direct grant, paid for from state tax revenues to actually construct housing. The Michigan Supreme Court, in considering the constitutionality of its act creating a state housing authority, held: The act does not authorize the state housing development authority to build buildings. It does not anticipate that the state housing development authority will be a party to building contracts. It cannot be said then that the state agency will be a party to, nor engaged in carrying on the construction of housing.... In Re Advisory Opinion re Constitutionality of Public Act 1966, No. 346, supra, 380 Mich. at 582, 158 N. W. 2d at 429. What was said of the Michigan act is equally true of the Wisconsin Act. State ex rel. Martin v. Giessel, supra , related to an enactment considerably different than the instant enactment. It would be an unwarranted bar to legitimate government functions to construe Giessel to encompass as an internal improvement the activity of the Authority as established by ch. 234, Stats. The interpretation and application of the internal-improvement restriction of the constitution has always presented difficult questions for this court. While each decision has precedential value, the specific facts then under consideration cannot be ignored. Also, the internal improvement restriction of the constitution has produced several constitutional amendments. [24] The language of art. VIII, sec. 10, was not intended by the framers of the constitution to prohibit encouragement of all internal improvements. See State ex rel. Wisconsin Development Authority v. Dammann, supra, pages 192, 193. In State ex rel. Jones v. Froehlich (1902), 115 Wis. 32, 91 N. W. 115, an effort was made to define the term internal improvement. The intervening years have proved, if nothing else, that the application of an abstract definition of the term has proved difficult. An examination of the cases coming before this court over the last seventy years leads to the conclusion that both this court and the legislature have been cognizant of changing times and the ever-changing needs of the state and its people. These cases demonstrate that in considering the application of the internal improvement restriction at least two factors are considered: (1) The dominant governmental function, and (2) the inability of private capital to satisfy the need. State ex rel. Hammann v. Levitan (1929), 200 Wis. 271, 228 N. W. 140; Appeal of Van Dyke (1935), supra; and State ex rel. La Follette v. Reuter (1967), supra. In Appeal of Van Dyke, supra, a taxpayer attacked the validity of an emergency unemployment relief income tax act. One section of the act permitted reimbursement of 25 percent of the unemployment relief paid by counties or cities for the labor cost of public works. The taxpayer argued, among other things, that the act was unconstitutional since state funds were being used to carry on works of internal improvement. The court, on page 544, stated: ... Nor do we consider petitioner's argument sound that ch. 29 violates sec. 10, art. VIII, Wisconsin constitution, which prohibits the state from being a party to carrying on works of internal improvement. It is true that some of the moneys which were paid out by the industrial commission, pursuant to the provision of sec. 2 (2) of the act, which permitted reimbursement to the county or city of twenty-five per cent of the labor cost of public works undertaken to provide for the unemployed, went into such public works, but the primary purpose of the state was not to become a party to carrying on works of internal improvement, but to reimburse the counties and cities which had made work simply for the purpose of providing employment to the unemployed. The court, having found a public purpose, declared that the carrying on of works of internal improvement was merely incidental thereto or a means to achieve the desired result. Any resulting internal improvement was not the ultimate purpose. In the instant case, the health, safety, and welfare of the people is the dominant purpose of ch. 234, Stats., and the construction of public housing is incidental thereto. Ch. 614, Laws of 1965, authorized the department of resource development to administer a state program of financial assistance to municipalities for the construction of pollution prevention and abatement facilities. The act was challenged as authorizing the state to engage in the carrying on of works of internal improvements. The court, in State ex rel. La Follette v. Reuter (1967), supra, held that the purpose of ch. 614 was clearly public and a matter of statewide concern. After quoting the definition of internal improvements as stated in Rippe v. Becker (1894), 56 Minn. 100, 117, 57 N. W. 331, 335, and quoted in State ex rel. Owen v. Donald, supra , and State ex rel. Thomson v. Giessel, supra , and citing several cases to show that the pollution of the waters of the state is inimical to public health, the court on page 403, stated: We conclude that matters pertaining to the abatement of water pollution are governmental functions of the state of Wisconsin and that water pollution prevention and abatement facilities are not works of internal improvement within the prohibition of sec. 10, art. VIII, Const. Petitioners allege that the state is made a party to carrying on works of internal improvement because of the initial appropriation of $250,000 to the Authority; sec. 234.15, Stats.; sec. 234.19; and also because sec. 234.30 provides that state agencies shall extend their cooperation to the Authority by providing personnel and facilities. We are of the opinion that underwriting the initial operating costs of the Authority and pledges of cooperation would not involve the state in the financing or construction of public housing; and that such activity on the part of the state constitutes only the encouragement of such activity by others. State ex rel. Wisconsin Development Authority v. Dammann, supra . We have previously determined there is a valid public and state purpose for the enactment of ch. 234, and we now find and conclude the dominant purpose set forth in the enactment is a valid governmental function and that since private capital is unavailable, therefore, the proposal does not constitute an internal improvement prohibited by art. VIII, sec. 10, Wisconsin Constitution.