Court Opinion

ID: 9797466
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:21:42.394284+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:56:19.536477
License: Public Domain

Judge ROY
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
In my view, the trial court and the majority confuse public purpose and necessity, which are subject to judicial review, with feasibility, which is not.
The district was formed to build a public road to improve access to Black Hawk. There are very few purposes which are more public than the construction of a public road by a public entity formed for that purpose.
In this case, feasibility, that is, whether the project can be built, depends on both the engineering feasibility and the approval of several regulatory agencies. In my view, it is up to the district to determine the order in which these matters are to be addressed. There is no point in having the necessary permits if the project cannot be constructed as proposed. And, while the reciprocal is true, that is the project cannot be constructed without the necessary permits, the granting or denial of permits is subject to negotiation, compromise, and accommodation.
The trial court found, and the majority does not have to address, that the district acted in bad faith with respect to necessity. That finding was premised on the district's choice to determine the engineering feasibility of the project prior to obtaining the necessary permits. That conclusion, in my view, is incorrect as a matter of law because it confuses necessity with feasibility.
Therefore, I would reverse and remand for further proceedings.