Court Opinion

ID: 9702449
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:11:59.950163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:37.386082
License: Public Domain

Williams, J.
I concur with my Brother Levin. I do so principally because of the interaction of two factors. The first factor is that the Job Development Authority Act deals with bond risks that are different from the secure risks of traditional revenue bonds that the bond buyer can rely on, such as the Blue Water Bridge, the Mackinac Bridge, hospitals, public housing, City-County Building, Detroit, etc., in each of which there was either a firm revenue record or sound engineering revenue projections. The second factor is the very strong emphasis in the act that the Legislature may in the future appropriate to maintain the capital reserve fund at a level to meet bond payments. 1975 PA 301, §§ 31-48 and 61. In my mind the first factor alone is not critical but interacting with the record it creates a situation where reliance is only partially on revenues and thus par*310tially on the credit of the state to the extent that the bonds are not revenue bonds and the act is constitutionally invalid.
Blair Moody, Jr., J., took no part in the decision of this case.