Opinion ID: 2430151
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Are public funds expended on the project expended for a public purpose?

Text: Appellants attack the statute on the additional ground that it would result in the unconstitutional use of public funds. They cite Sec. 3 of Art. 8 of our Constitution providing that, Taxes shall be levied and collected    for public purposes only. The words public purposes are no narrower than the words public use discussed at length above. Since we have held property is taken for public use, it follows that the expenditure of funds on the same project would be for public purposes. Here again the legislative determination of public purposes is highly persuasive. This Court has held that: No exact definition can be made [of public purposes]. Suffice it to say that, unless a court can say that the purposes for which public funds are expended are clearly not public purposes, it would not be justified in holding invalid a legislative act or provision in a city charter providing funds for such purposes. [27] This question has been raised in almost all of the urban renewal cases in other states, and it has been held that the tax money spent on the project has been for public purposes. [28]