Court Opinion

ID: 9696137
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:38:05.667635+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:18.920053
License: Public Domain

*17Loevinger, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the disposition of this case by the court but dissent from the court’s opinion with respect to the second point.
Relator contends that the Authority has not complied with the statutory mandate to find or provide “a feasible method for the temporary relocation of families to be displaced from the project area.” Minn. St. 462.531. From an examination of the record I am not convinced that the Authority has complied with this mandate. The record may be incomplete on this point, but we take it as it comes to us. It does not establish that the Authority in this respect has done “all that is necessary under the act.”
However, the Metropolitan Building provides no housing and its destruction will involve no loss of housing. Relator has shown no interest, distinguishable from that of any member of the public, in the provision of housing for those displaced from this area. Consequently it has no standing to raise this issue. In re Settlement of Cegon, 212 Minn. 75, 2 N. W. (2d) 433; Schultz v. Krosch, 204 Minn. 585, 284 N. W. 782; Sackette v. City of Duluth, 201 Minn. 121, 275 N. W. 617; C. Thomas Stores Sales System, Inc. v. Spaeth, 209 Minn. 504, 297 N. W. 9. Accordingly, I deem it inappropriate that the court should pass upon this issue and believe that the action of the district court should be affirmed without the comments relating to this point that appear in the court’s opinion.
Mr. Justice Thomas Gallagher took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.