Court Opinion

ID: 9527912
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:35:31.204573+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:17.433877
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, Justice,
concurring, concurring in the result, and dissenting.
I concur in all of the Court’s opinion, except part 11(D) (Whether There Is General Public Benefit) and part 11(H) (Other Charitable Exempt Property). I concur in the result of part 11(H) and dissent from part 11(D).
In my view, the result of part 11(H) is supported by the rationale that OMC has not shown that it offers recreational motorcycling to the public at a reduced rate and that the fees charged appear commensurate with the costs of the services offered by OMC. I do not accept as a rationale the statement that the record does not indicate that OMC’s property was acquired nor maintained to any significant degree by donations. In my view, the members’ donations have contributed to the acquisition and maintenance of OMC’s property.
I dissent from part 11(D), because of its attempt to distinguish the public benefit of motorcycle riding from the public benefit of playing golf, as supported by Coeur d’Alene Pub. Golf Club v. Kootenai Bd., 106 Idaho 104, 675 P.2d 819 (1984). The suggestion that a private golf course fulfills a need which the government might otherwise be required to fill, but that a private motorcycle track does not, smacks of elitism I believe has no place in our legal system.
BISTLINE, J. concurs.