Court Opinion

ID: 9598636
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:10:26.544786+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:18.198918
License: Public Domain

Dolliver, J.
(concurring) — I agree with the result reached by the majority. However, I prefer to hold the issuance of these tax-exempt, no-recourse, revenue bonds not to be a violation of Const, art. 8, § 5. The overwhelming majority of jurisdictions which have provisions similar to article 8, section 5, hold this type of transaction not to be contrary to their constitutions. As I read this provision of the constitution, it is not violated by Laws of 1974, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 147, p. 503; RCW 70.37. If, however, some of our previous opinions seem to require ah invalidation (see Port of Longview v. Taxpayers, 85 Wn.2d 216, 533 P.2d 128 (1974)), either these cases should be distinguished or, if necessary, overruled. See Note, 50 Wash. L. Rev. 440 (1975).
*117Certainly this seems a more straightforward way of validating the issuance of the bonds as compared with the convoluted analysis of the majority which declares a conjunctive to be a disjunctive and judicially transmutes language found exclusively in one section of the constitution to another.
Stafford, Brachtenbach, and Hicks, JJ., concur with Dolliver, J.