Court Opinion

ID: 9847927
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:10:01.854648+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:46.893901
License: Public Domain

MATTHEWS, Justice,
concurring and dissenting in part.
I believe the superior court did not err in concluding that the cold storage facility was a beneficial new industry. I agree with Justice Boochever that the term “new industry” refers to a type of industry. Such a construction tends to eliminate claims of unfair competitive advantage which might otherwise be made.
I also agree with Justice Boochever that section VII of the city ordinance cannot reasonably be read as exempting sales or leases to operators of new industries from the requirements of section III of the ordinance and for this reason I agree that the order of the superior court granting summary judgment to the appellees must be reversed.
I express no opinion on the question whether under AS 29.48.260 a sale or lease of municipal property to a beneficial new industry under subsection (e) must comply with the requirements of subsection (c). This case was presented to the superior *49court and to this court on the premise that the subsections operated independently, that is, if the conditions of subsection (e) were met, subsection (c) did not apply. No suggestion to the contrary was briefed or argued and the point has been waived.1 If this were a case in which for some unusual reason the rule of waiver should not be imposed, and I think it is not, then at least supplemental briefs should be called for. It is only natural for a judge who has an opinion on a point which is not argued to believe that the research and arguments of the parties cannot change his mind; but this tendency should be resisted, because it is surprisingly often that just that occurs.

. University of Alaska v. Simpson Bldg. Supply Co., 530 P.2d 1317, 1324 (Alaska 1975); Sanui-ta v. Common Laborer’s & Hod Carriers, Local 341, 402 P.2d 199 (Alaska 1965).