Court Opinion

ID: 9595371
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:39:36.96928+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:31.566814
License: Public Domain

JACKSON, Judge
(concurring and dissenting):
I concur with part I of the majority opinion, which concludes that the trial court correctly ruled that the procedure used by the RDA was fatally flawed.
I dissent from the “blight findings” analysis in part II. The majority reverses the trial court’s declaratory judgment interpreting the Utah Neighborhood Development Act, but I would affirm. The majority’s attempt to harmonize the statutory provisions runs counter to the legislature’s deliberate insertion of a mandatory restriction on project areas. That restriction specifically made our statute the opposite of other states’ statutes. The restriction was designed to protect private property rights from sweeping determinations by redevelopment officials. •
Appellees sued for declaratory judgments on three causes of action pursuant to our declaratory judgments statute, Utah Code Ann. § 78-33-2 (1987). Each cause of action requested declarations construing the provisions of the Utah Neighborhood Development Act, Utah Code Ann. §§ 11-19-1 to -35 (1986). The trial court was asked to determine the proper meaning and application in this controversy of the terms “blight,” “project area,” and “detrimental or mimical to the public health, safety or welfare,” as used in the Act.
The trial court entered the following ten conclusions of law, among others, in support of its declaratory judgment:
1. The statute under which the RDA is proceeding in this litigation and attempting to acquire and redevelop the plaintiffs’ property is the 1969 Utah Neighborhood Development Act, §§ 11-19-1, et seq., Utah Code Ann. (1953), as amended.
2. The 1969 Utah Neighborhood Development Act was preceded by the 1965 Utah Community Redevelopment Act, §§ 11-15-1, et seq.
3. Section 39 of the 1965 Utah Community Redevelopment Act is identical to Section 9 of the 1969 Utah Neighborhood Development Act.
4. The legislative intent and policy revealed in the legislative history of Section 39 of the 1965 Utah Community Redevelopment Act is embodied in the identical provision of Section 9 of the 1969 Utah Neighborhood Development Act.
5. The legislative history of the 1965 Community Redevelopment Act clearly reflects that that Act was originally proposed in the Utah Senate as Senate Bill 31. Section 39 of Senate Bill 31 *773was word-for-word taken from and identical [to] the California Redevelopment Statute 33000 et seq., West’s Cal. Ann.Code. Section 39 of Senate Bill 31 followed the dictates of Section 33321 of the California statute in providing: A project area need not be restricted to buildings, improvements or lands which are detrimental or inimical to public health, safety or welfare, but may consist of an area in which such conditions predominate and injuriously affect the entire area. A project area may include lands, buildings or improvements which are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, but whose inclusion is found necessary for the effective redevelopment of the area of which they are a part. (Emphasis added.)
6. The 1965 House Journal, 36th Session, reveals that the House of Representatives made two significant amendments to Section 39 of Senate Bill 31 as originally introduced. According to the House Journal, in the first line after the word “area,” the words “need not” were deleted, and the word “must” was inserted. That same sentence was also amended to insert a period after the word “welfare” and the entire balance of the Section was deleted. Section 39 of Senate Bill 31, as amended, then read as follows:
A project area must [need-not] be restricted to buildings, improvements or lands which are detrimental or inimical to the public health, safety or welfare, [but may-consist of an area in-which such conditions predominate and injuriously effect-the entire area. A project area may include lands, buildings, or improvements-which are not detrimental to public health, safety or-welfare, but whose inclusion is -f-ound necessary for effective redevelopment of the area of which they- are a par-t.]
7. The “area-wide” concept argued by the RDA was specifically rejected by the Utah legislature as underscored in the compelling legislative history. Instead, the legislature adopted a provision which limits a project area to buildings, lands or improvements which are detrimental or inimical to the public health, safety and welfare. The rejection by the Utah legislature of a specific provision contained in the 1965 Utah Community Redevelopment Act and re-enacted in the 1969 Utah Neighborhood Development Act is highly persuasive as a matter of law, consistent with controlling law, and warrants the conclusion that the 1969 Utah Neighborhood Development Act should not be construed to adopt or incorporate the “area-wide” concept.
8. Under § 11-19-9 of the Utah Neighborhood Development Act, the Agency, incident to a determination of blight, must resolve that every property included within a redevelopment project area be detrimental or inimical to the public health, safety or welfare[;] § 11-19-2(10) and (11) of the Utah Neighborhood Development Act require that the Agency determine that the “project area” is a “blighted area”.
9. The RDA has failed to cite to the Court any authorities and court decisions to support its position of an “area-wide” application of the Utah Act where the statute being enforced is similar to Utah. The legal authorities cited by the RDA to support its claim that there are no state and federal constitutional barriers to redevelopment on an “area-wide” basis do not have application to the Utah Neighborhood Development Act and the provisions set forth in § 11-19-9.
10. It is within the clear legislative prerogative to restrict redevelopment to specific buildings, lands or improvements which meet the test set by the legislature in this case to properties which are “detrimental or inimical to the public health, safety and welfare.” Once the legislature has established the guidelines and limits to the implementation of a redevelopment plan for the acquisition and redevelopment of private properties, the RDA must then strictly comply with the requirements *774of the enabling legislation, including § 11-19-9.
Since I agree with the foregoing conclusions of law, I would affirm the trial court’s declaratory judgment interpreting the Act.