Court Opinion

ID: 9845423
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:21:37.637396+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:07.203248
License: Public Domain

Neely, Chief Justice,

dissenting:

I concur in Part I of the majority opinion but I am compelled to dissent from Part II because it is economically and legally unsound. The issue is not whether a grant of municipal taxing authority may be restricted to Class I cities, but rather, whether a specific type of taxing authority for a specific purpose may be legitimately restricted to Class I cities.
On both the basis of policy and prior decisional law, such a grant of taxing authority is constitutionally valid. Obviously, once this Court determines that the Legislature has acted within constitutional bounds, it is not for the Court to gainsay their policy. State ex rel. Appalachian Power Company v. Gainer, 149 W.Va. 740, 143 S.E.2d 351 (1965).
The majority would strike down W. Va. Code 8-13-3 [1975] as “special legislation” under W. Va. Const., art. 6, § 39.1 This is a surprising departure from prior case law *346which threatens disastrous consequences to the management of State affairs. The provision of the Constitution prohibiting special legislation has a long history in this State. The purpose was, originally, to discourage “private solicitation of the members [of the Legislature], the tendency of which is to introduce corruption and bribery as elements of legislation.” Volume III, Debates and Proceedings of the First Constitutional Convention of West Virginia, at 831 (comments of President A. D. Soper). A second purpose was to preserve uniformity and consistency in legislation. See Brozka v. County Court of Brooke County, 111 W.Va. 191, 160 S.E. 914 (1931); State ex rel. Rickey v. Sims, 122 W.Va. 29, 7 S.E.2d 54 (1940). The case law in this area is well developed and provides *347the standard by which the constitutionality of W.Va. Code, 8-13-3 [1975] must be judged.
Several general principles can be drawn from a study of the cases. In any case where a legislative enactment is challenged as a special act the first issue to be addressed is the classification involved, i.e., what is the nature of the classes created by the Legislature? Shackleford v. Catlett, _ W.Va. _, 244 S.E.2d 327 (1978). The second issue is whether the classification created is reasonably related to a valid State purpose. State ex rel. Dieringer v. Bachman, 131 W.Va. 562, 24 S.E.2d 420 (1948). If the classification is reasonable and not arbitrary the next matter of inquiry is whether all members of a class similarly situated are treated in a like manner. Bachman, supra. If the classification is rational and all members of the class similarly situated are treated in a like manner, then the enactment is a general one and does not violate the constitutional prohibition. State ex rel. County Court of Cabell County v. Battle, 147 W.Va. 841, 131 S.E.2d 730 (1963). Any doubt in this regard is to be resolved in favor of the Legislature:
It seems quite clear ... that the constitution of this state gives rise to a rule of construction when the question involved is whether an enactment is classified as a general act or as a special or local act. There is a well settled general rule that in cases of doubt, the legislative intent not to exceed their constitutional powers is to be presumed, so that the outgrowth of a doubtful construction is to so construe as to render it constitutional. [Citation omitted.] Based upon that presumption of the legislative intent and purpose, it follows that the legislative intent to comply with the constitutional directions in enacting legislation and to enact a general law, instead of a special or local law, wherever a general law “can be made applicable to the case” should be weighed when the conclusion is doubtful. Supposedly the Legislature is familiar with the terms and provisions of our constitution, and desires to conform to and be governed by them. We believe *348that this section of our constitution requires the courts, in cases of doubt, to favor the construction which would result in a statute being viewed as a general law. [State ex rel. Rickey v. Sims, 122 W.Va. 29, 7 S.E.2d 54 at 57 (1940).]
Even if it is decided that the challenged act is special legislation, i.e., the classification is unreasonable or treats members of a class differently, inquiry should not end there. It is proper to consider whether the special legislation fits into the exception contained in Article VI, Section 39 that permits such special legislation where a general act cannot be made applicable. See, e.g., Meisel v. Tri-State Airport Authority, 135 W.Va. 528, 64 S.E.2d 32 (1951); Hedrick v. County Court of Raleigh County, 153 W.Va. 660, 172 S.E.2d 312 (1970). The existence of general legislation forecloses this inquiry at the outset because a general law has been made applicable. See, e.g., Brozka, supra; Truax-Traer Coal Co. v. Compensation Commissioner, 123 W.Va. 621, 17 S.E.2d 330 (1941). If there is not an existing general law then the Legislature’s determination whether a general law can be made applicable is controlling and cannot be reversed unless it is clearly and palpably wrong. “If a reasonable necessity for a special or local law is apparent or is indicated in the Statute, it will be presumed that the legislature properly considered the matter and the courts will not disturb such legislation.” Battle, supra, at 735. When these principles are applied to the case currently before us it is clear that under any rational, objective analysis the statute involved is constitutional.
W. Va. Code, 8-13-3 [1975] allows Class I cities to impose a hotel occupancy tax and to devote the proceeds to construction, financing, and promoting convention facilities.2 It is not contended by the majority that the stat*349ute embodies an improper purpose. The majority readily accepts the Legislature’s judgment that the development of convention facilities is a matter to be disposed of at the local level. Indeed, the Legislature’s control over, and right to delegate authority to, municipalities cannot be seriously contested in this jurisdiction. See, e.g., State ex rel. City of Charleston v. Coghill, 156 W.Va. 877, 207 S.E.2d 113 (1973); State ex rel. Plymale v. City of Huntington, 147 W.Va. 728, 131 S.E.2d 160 (1963). This is especially true in the area of the taxing power. Tweel v. *350West Virginia Racing Commission, 138 W.Va. 531, 76 S.E.2d 874 (1953). The majority readily accepts that development of convention facilities serves a public purpose. Yet the majority would strike down the statute. Apparently the basis for their holding is that, although the purpose to be served is valid, the classification involved is not reasonably related to that purpose. The majority ignores the role of the Legislature in this area and merely asserts, but does not prove, that the means chosen to implement the purpose is constitutionally impermissible. The majority holds the classification unreasonable. I disagree.
The classification involved here is the division of municipalities into classes on the basis of population. The Legislature’s general power to undertake such classification is clear. Indeed much of Chapter 8 of the Code dealing with municipalities is based on such a system of classification. Additionally, such classifications can be found throughout our law from provisions relating to Civil Service to county participation in the Workmen’s Compensation program. The majority wisely does not attack this scheme of classification per se but, instead, asserts that the classification does not bear a rational relation to the purpose of the statute.
The first aspect of analysis in a case such as this is similar to Equal Protection Clause analysis. Shackleford, supra. In Shackleford this Court considered a statute which allowed a county to elect whether to join the Workmen’s Compensation program. We held that the relevant class created was the employees of the particular county involved, not, as the plaintiff urged, all county employees in the State. We sustained the statute against both Equal Protection and special legislation attacks. Writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice Caplan said:
We must determine whether the challenged state statute ... bears some rational relationship to legitimate state purposes; whether the classification is a rational one based on social, economic, *351historic or geographical factors; whether the classification bears a reasonable relationship to a proper governmental purpose; and, whether all persons within the classes are treated equally. [Shakleford,, supra, at 330.]
The class involved in the present case is not all cities or municipalities in the State; it is all Class I cities. The statute in effect creates two classes: cities with populations of 50,000 or more and cities with a population of less than 50,000. The Legislature can draw such distinctions and validly treat the members of the different classes differently. Battle, supra, at 735; State ex rel. Heck’s Inc. v. Gates, 149 W.Va. 421, 141 S.E.2d 379 at 387 (1965).
The purpose of W. Va. Code, 8-13-3 [1975] is to promote the development of convention facilities within the State. The purpose of the statute is not to promote the economic growth of some areas at the expense of others, although economic growth in Class I cities may well be an effect of the development of convention facilities. The Legislature may well have been aware of such an effect, as well as other effects, such as a general boost in tourism, employment, and overall State economic activity.
If, as a matter of policy, the Legislature decides that convention facilities should be encouraged in Class I cities but not others, it is not our role to substitute our own judgment.3 Rather, our role is to determine wheth*352er any possible set of facts can be conceived to justify the Legislature’s choice. I would note that we are bound by the Constitution, prior decisions and the fundamental principles of stare decisis when we set out to manage the State economy, since in the area of economics certainty in the law is the pre-eminent policy of justice. Thus, the real question in this case is whether a set of facts can be conceived to justify the Legislature’s policy decision to limit the benefits of the operation of the statute to Class I cities.
The majority’s argument is, essentially, that the Legislature cannot grant a monopoly on convention facility development to Charleston and Huntington.4 The major*353ity does not consider whether there might be a rational basis for such an action even if that is what the statute does. I do not think that the statute has that effect or purpose. Other cities in this State may well attain Class I status in the future. So let us turn to the question of whether there was a rational basis for granting Class I cities this additional benefit and incentive. Justice Ca-plan, in Shackleford, supra, provided some indication of where to look for a rational basis when he referred to “classification ... based on social, economic, historic or geographical factors.” In this case it is obvious that the classification is rationally based on economic considerations.
Development is not something that can be willed into being or, as the sad experience of the Great Society aptly illustrates, be created by throwing money and people into a vacuum. There must first exist an infrastructure before development can be encouraged. In the present case, for example, it would be futile to extend the hotel occupancy tax to cities which had few hotels to tax. It is not unreasonable for the Legislature to have found that only Class I cities supported enough hotel facilities to make such a tax economically viable.5 Additionally, the same assumption must necessarily apply to restaurants, theaters, airports, and other social amenities which are part of the infrastructure necessary for successful development and promotion of convention facilities.
It is also a well accepted principle of development economics that there are economies of scale inherent in *354urban conditions which can be successfully exploited. This, coupled with the consideration that limited monopoly promotes economies of scale, makes the action of the Legislature eminently reasonable in this case. Essentially the Legislature decided to encourage our Class I cities to compete with cities such as Cincinnati, Louisville, Columbus and Pittsburgh for a limited convention trade. It is reasonable to concentrate our State’s resources in urbanized areas where the Legislature believes that we can build up an infrastructure of sufficient strength to permit us to compete with other states, while at the same time recognizing that a hotel occupancy tax in cities which can never compete successfully will be nothing but a nuisance and a potential economic liability. If legislators from smaller counties conceive that the overall effect of a statewide hotel occupancy tax will be detrimental to their counties, while the legislators from counties with large cities believe that such a tax will further the development of their section, a proper legislative compromise can be effected by the exact division of municipalities into classes based on population which is under review. The Legislature sought to achieve and did achieve a Paraeto Optimum in which everyone was made better off without making anyone worse off. It is as unjust to treat unequals equally as it is to treat equals unequally!
The majority’s reliance on State ex rel. Taxpayers Protective Association of Raleigh County v. Hanks, 157 W.Va. 350, 201 S.E.2d 304 (1973) is sadly misplaced. In Hanks we struck down a statute which exempted counties with a population of 100,000 or more from the operation of a law which required the Court Clerk’s office to remain open on Saturdays. The exception would have worked only upon Kanawha and Cabell Counties. The decision in Hanks had two alternative foundations. The first, that the act involved violated the express provision of Article VI, Section 39 prohibiting “regulating or changing county or district affairs” is inapplicable here. It is not urged that W.Va. Code, 8-13-3 [1975] violates any of the enumerated prohibitions of Article VI, Section 39. The sec*355ond reason in Hanks was that the classification was not reasonably related to the purpose of the statute. On the facts of Hanks that was clearly a correct decision, but to go from that to say that any classification which singles out the two regions there involved is to apply an arbitrary test not supported by the cases, including Hanks, or by logic. The purpose of the statute in Hanks was to insure ease of access to public officials by requiring a public office to be open on Saturdays. The exception would have frustrated that purpose in our two most populous counties. But the case does not stand for the proposition that all legislative classifications involving Kanawha and Cabell counties are void. Rather, it is an example of proper rational basis analysis. When that analysis is applied to the statute involved in this case, it is clear that a rational basis exists for the Legislature’s classification.
Even if we were to hold, and I do not see how we can rationally do so, that W.Va. Code, 8-13-3 [1975] is special legislation, it is still valid and constitutional. W.Va. Const., art. VI, section 39 would permit special legislation where it serves a valid purpose and a general law cannot be made applicable. It is not contested that the statute in this case serves a valid purpose. Given that, and the erroneous assumption that the statute is a special act, the question becomes whether a general act can be made applicable. This is peculiarly a question for the Legislature. See Battle, supra, at 735. Here, in light of the economic factors involved, the Legislatue could have deemed the legislation necessary. The history of this statute reveals that the Legislature did consider the issue and consciously decided to restrict the statute’s operation to Class I cities. See J. of the House of Del., 62d Leg., Reg. Sess., H.B. 1062, (1975) at 360, 822, 823, 830 and 1177. That determination is one that must be respected by this Court. I would not change this doctrine sub silentio as the majority attempts to do in this case.

 The text of Article 6, § 39 reads, in full:
The legislature shall not pass local or special laws in any of the following enumerated cases; that is to say, for Granting *346divorces;
Laying out, opening, altering and working roads or highways;
Vacating roads, town plats, streets, alleys and public grounds;
Locating, or changing county seats;
Regulating or changing county or district ■ affairs;
Providing for the sale of church property, or property held for charitable uses;
Regulating the practice in courts of justice;
Incorporating cities, towns or villages, or amending the charter of any city, town or village, containing a population of less than two thousand;
Summoning or impaneling grand or petit juries;
The opening or conducting of any election, or designating the place of voting;
The sale and mortgage of real estate belonging to minors, or other under disability;
Chartering, licensing, or etablishing ferries or toll bridges; Remitting fines, penalties or forfeitures;
Changing the law of descent;
Regulating the rate of interest;
Authorizing deeds to be made for land sold for taxes;
Releasing taxes;
Releasing title to forfeited lands.
The legislature shall provide, by general laws, for the foregoing and all other cases for which provision can be so made; and in no case shall a special act be passed, where a general law would be proper, and can be made applicable to the case, nor in any other case in which the courts have jurisdiction, and are competent to give the relief asked for.

 W.Va. Code, § 8-13-3 reads in full:
Each Class I city shall have plenary power and authority to levy and collect an excise tax upon the occupancy of hotel rooms within the corporate limits of such city; but the rate of such tax shall not exceed three percent of the cost of the hotel room or rooms. The tax shall be levied on the person paying *349the consideration for the occupancy of the hotel room and shall be collected by the hotel as part of the consideration paid for the use of the hotel room. The tax shall not be levied on any person paying the consideration for the occupancy of a hotel room for ninety or more consecutive days.
For the purpose of this section and any ordinance enacted pursuant thereto, the term “hotel” means any building or buildings in which the public may, for a consideration, obtain sleeping accommodations, including, but not limited to, hotels, motels, inns or courts. The term “hotel” shall not be construed to mean any hospital, sanitarium, extended care facility, nursing home or university or college housing unit.
All revenues collected by a Class I city from any such hotel occupancy tax shall be deposited in the general revenue fund of such city and expended for the following purposes and none other: (1) Planning, construction, reconstruction, establishment, acquisition, improvement, renovation, extension, enlargement, equipment, maintenance, repair and operation of convention facilities including, but not limited to, arenas, auditoriums, civic centers and convention centers; (2) the payment of principal or interest or both on municipal bonds issued pursuant to the provisions of article sixteen [§ 8-16-1 et seq.] of this chapter, the proceeds from the sale of which were used to finance convention facilities; (3) the promotion of conventions; or any combination of the foregoing.
The ordinance of any Class I city imposing any such hotel occupancy tax shall (1) specify the minimum number of hotel rooms which a hotel must have in order for the occupancy of such hotel to be subject to the tax herein authorized, (2) specify the rate of tax, which shall not exceed three percent of the cost of the hotel room or rooms; (3) provide the manner in which the occupancy tax shall be collected and remitted to such Class I city; and (4) provide such other provisions as are necessary for the proper administration and enforcement of the tax. (1975, c. 165.)

 Courts are not concerned with questions relating to the policy of a legislative enactment. Questions relating to policy are solely for the legislature. The general powers of the legislature are almost plenary. It can legislate on every subject not interdicted by the Constitution itself. In considering constitutional restraint, the negation of legislative power must appear beyond reasonable doubt .... In recognition of fundamental and constitutional principles relative to separation of powers in government, courts have recognized that the necessity for and reasonableness of classifications for purposes of legislation ... are primarily questions for the legislature and, if any state of facts can be reasonably conceived to support the classification, such classification is binding upon the courts .... A legislative classification cannot be held by a court to be invalid unless it is *352devoid of reason, arbitrary or unreasonable. In that area, a court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the legislature. Courts cannot be concerned with legislative policy or the mere widsom or lack of wisdom of the statute in question. [Gainer, supra, at 357, 363-364.]

 The majority would have us believe that the section is effectively restricted to Charleston and Huntington “in the tweel light of reality” because “no other cities are on the threshold.” This is not the case. Of the seven other cities mentioned by the majority, two, Parkersburg and Wheeling, were on the verge of Class I status at the time of the 1970 census. Parkersburg then had a population of 43,225. A 1977 estimate of the population of Parkersburg shows that it has declined 12.3% to 38,784; the population of Wood County has, however, increased 2.7% and projections show Parkersburg beginning to grow once again. It is projected that by 1990 the population of Parkersburg will be between 47,000 and 54,000 people. Wheeling had a population of 48,188 in 1970. Again the 1977 estimates show a decline of 10.4% in that city’s population. Unlike Parkersburg, however, the projections for Wheeling do not show an expected reversal of that trend. But such an occurrence is not impossible should a planning effort such as that currently found in Parkersburg be instituted. Another city mentioned by the majority, Beckley, is one of the fastest growing cities in the southeast. It had a population of 19,884 in 1970. By the time of the 1977 estimate population had increased 7.3% to 21,343, while the population in Raleigh County had increased 17.6% in the same time. Given the continued growth of that area - the 1977 estimate put Raleigh County’s population at 82,384 - and Beckley’s well-known penchant for annexation, Beckley may well be our next Class I city.
An argument similar to the majority’s was advanced by the plan-tiff in Tweel, supra. In rejecting the argument we noted that the *353class was not closed, creating- a monopoly in the existing members of the class. The same applies here. It is useless to speculate whether other cities will indeed reach Class I status in the future. Indeed, it is not our role to engage in such speculation. The mere possibility is sufficient.

 There are indications that the Legislature considered and rejected extending the benefits of W.Va. Code, 8-13-3 to Class II and III cities. See, J. of the House of Del., 62nd Leg., Reg. Sess., H.B. 1062 (1975) at 360, 822, 823, 830 and 1177. The legislative choice was a considered action and was not undertaken arbitrarily.