Court Opinion

ID: 9731142
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:35:21.564888+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:13.969599
License: Public Domain

*168Yetka, Justice
(dissenting).
I join in the dissent of Justice Kelly.
I find that the legislation has four flaws which I deem fatal on1 a constitutional basis:
1. The legislature did not set up a new taxing district, yet the bill allows taxes to be levied on one unit of government to be expended in another.
2. The proceeds to be distributed to the recipient governmental units may be used for general governmental purposes and not for a specific project benefiting all taxpayers as was the case in Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177, 89 N. W. 2d 635 (1958), cited in the majority opinion.
3. Money grants are given to wealthy bedroom communities which not only have no financial need but whose policies have been to discourage industrial expansion in their individual communities.
4. The whole procedure of assessing and collecting the taxes is so complicated as to raise question whether administrative officials can administer the law uniformly and fairly.
It seems to me that if it was the legislative intent to encourage the development of industry in certain areas that do not have a high tax base and to help the areas which have large recreational areas, it would be proper to set up a metro tax district for the purpose of levying taxes to establish industrial parks in certain places and to aid in park and recreational area development and maintenance in others. But to levy taxes and distribute the proceeds so that a governmental unit can expend the same for general purposes seems to me not only a violation of our constitution but to actually inhibit sound fiscal management and long-range planning in those areas which have heretofore showed a lack of such planning.
Mr. Chief Justice Sheran, not having been a member of this court at the time of the argument and submission, took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
*169Mr. Justice Todd and Mr. Justice Scott took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.