Court Opinion

ID: 9856810
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:58:50.218104+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:40:39.940107
License: Public Domain

*11HiggiNS, J.,
concurring in result:
At its January, 1963, Session the Superior Court of Guilford County entered judgment sustaining the demurrer and dismissing this action in which the plaintiff sought to restrain the City of High Point and its Redevelopment Commission from spending tax money or incurring a debt to finance Redevelopment Project No. R-23 without voter approval. In a unanimous opinion reported in 259 N.C. 605, 131 S.E. 2d 464, this Court reversed the judgment.
On another hearing the Superior Court, as a part of its judgment, entered the following: “(1) That the plaintiff’s prayer for judgment to generally restrain the City of High Point and the Redevelopment Commission of High Point from proceeding with its redevelopment plans for the East Central Urban Redevelopment Area be, and the same is hereby, denied.”
This Court found error in the judgment and remanded the cause with the following instructions: "Defendants should be restrained from the expenditure on account of the Redevelopment plan of any funds or revenues whatsoever, (and the pledging of the credit of the City of High Point), except nontax funds for the payment of salaries and expenses necessary to maintain the status quo, until the inquiries here-inbefore listed are judicially made and the matters therein involved determined to be valid and possible of achievement.” The decision is reported in 262 N.C. 306, 137 S.E. 2d 115.
The cause is now back here for the third time. One defect in the plan has been remedied. The City has withdrawn its claim for a credit of $27,526.00 (Item (e)) in its plan because the land which it pledged to convey to the Commission was bought by the City with tax money. Yokley v. Clark, 262 N.C. 218, 136 S.E. 2d 564. Some of the other defects have been glossed over but essentially those pointed out in the concurring opinion still infect the plan.
The history of this litigation indicates two things: (1) The City of High Point does not intend to provide cash for its one-third of the project’s cost. The landowner whose property is taken cannot be reimbursed for his property by funds spent for street improvements, water, light and sewer lines, etc., during a two-year period before the plan was offered; or by the money Guilford County may or may not spend for schools in the area prior to January 1, 1968. (2) The City is not disposed to have the voters pass on the expenditure of tax money or the incurring of a debt for the money necessary to meet the City’s part of the cost.
One of the arguments advanced here for our approval of this plan in its present condition is this: More than six million dollars now available in Washington for the project may be lost unless this plan is ap*12proved. Some other city will get the money. This argument, whether valid or invalid, is political — not legal. It should be made to the voters. Article VII, Section 6, of the North Carolina Constitution was intended to make the argument inapplicable in the courts.
The present opinion of the Court points out with precision and clarity the legal obstacles in the way of consummating the plan for the plaza. This is the heart of project NCP-23. In order that I may not be understood as approving other features not discussed in the opinion, I concur in the result. Instead of returning this proceeding to be nibbled at further by modification, I would give direction that a permanent restraining order issue. This course does not preclude preparation and approval of a lawful plan.
PARKER, J. concurs in concurring opinion.