Court Opinion

ID: 9847304
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:57:26.115827+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:06.722155
License: Public Domain

Utter, J.
(concurring) — While I concur in the majority's result, I do so based on my dissent in In re Seattle, 96 Wn.2d 616, 635, 638 P.2d 549 (1981). That Mall, Inc., is *626again before us to challenge the Westlake Project suggests that the court's use of the term "incidental" remains unworkable, as well as anomalous within our case history. See In re Seattle, supra at 643 (Utter, J., dissenting). The present court recognizes that "the City is continuing to pursue the long-standing Westlake Project objectives . . ." Majority, at 625. In spite of maintaining the same basic goals as it had before, the City now prevails because it has successfully repackaged the plan. This only demonstrates, however, that the retail element of the original project was, and is, subordinate to the City's broader public goals.
Mall, Inc., on the other hand, might well be skeptical of the In re Seattle court's heavy reliance on State ex rel. Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. Superior Court, 133 Wash. 308, 312, 233 P. 651 (1925). I have already discussed at length the reasons why Puget Sound is factually inappo-site to the Westlake Project. See In re Seattle, supra at 637-38 (Utter, J., dissenting). Nevertheless, it is appropriate to recall the Puget Sound court's method of determining whether the contemplated use of the property is "really public." "'[Cjourts look to the substance rather than the form, to the end rather than to the means.'" Puget Sound, at 312. It is regrettable that, at considerable expense, the City of Seattle has had to reshape its form and alter its means to achieve the substance of its long-recognized ends.