Court Opinion

ID: 9714344
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:35:37.515292+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:25.359246
License: Public Domain

YETKA, Justice
(dissenting).
I join in the dissent of Mr. Justice Kelly and would add these comments of my own in support thereof.
The majority would suggest that there was no harm to the developer and no wrongful act to invoke estoppel. Yet, here the legislature passed a law to encourage residential construction. It is a fact known to everyone that today construction money for new homes is virtually non-existent. The legislature apparently amended the law because it wanted to prevent assistance for the construction of multiple housing for the affluent, yet it specifically allowed several projects similar to this one to proceed in other communities.
One could scarcely find a more deliberate act of discrimination and denial of equal protection. Moreover, there is no evidence that this project was for the affluent alone. Even if it were, presumably the people who would buy the new units would be leaving some existing units which would then go on the market. It is the dream of most Americans to own a new home as nice as they can afford — perhaps even beyond that — by giving up other wants and desires.
Here the legislature passed a statute to encourage the activity undertaken. A developer then acquired land and expended enormous sums of money in reliance on the law only to have the rug pulled out from under it just as the bonds were to be sold and the construction begun.
I believe there are grave constitutional questions with what the legislature did here; but if the trial court were affirmed, we would not need to decide those questions.