Court Opinion

ID: 9702410
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:10:41.248602+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:55.505555
License: Public Domain

*171Williams and Blair Moody, Jr., JJ.
(dissenting). The difference between this opinion and the majority opinion is the amount of information the pertinent statute prescribes that a citizen is entitled to receive from a bond notice.
The amount of notice is prescribed in MCLA 117.5(g); MSA 5.2084(g) as follows:
"The notice of intent to issue bonds shall state the maximum amount of the bond issue, purpose thereof, source of payment, right of referendum thereon, and such other information as the legislative body shall determine to be necessary to adequately inform the electors and all other interested persons of the nature of the issue and their rights with respect thereto.” (Emphasis added.)
The Mayor wrote the Common Council of Detroit on October 20, 1976, to describe the purpose of requesting funds for a project called in the city’s application for leave to appeal a "new Riverfront Arena”:
"I therefore propose the construction of a 20,000 seat arena, near Cobo Hall * * *
"the entire project will cost $20,000,000 * * * .”
This information advised the Common Council the funds requested were for
1) "construction”
2) a new arena, near Cobo Hall
3) "a 20,000 seat arena”
4) "the entire project will cost $20,000,000.”
Two days later the City Finance Director requested the Common Council to approve a bond issue including "Civic Center — Riverfront Stadium Development $1,500,000”.
The Common Council could make sense of this language because of the Mayor’s prior communication.
*172The question before us, however, is whether such notice would "adequately inform the electors and all other interested persons of the nature of the issue * * * ” and in particular, "the purpose thereof,” as the statute requires. It is the majority’s "opinion that defendant’s notice of intent in the instant case met all the requirements of the statute * * * .”
It is our opinion that the additional information which was thought appropriate for the Common Council was also appropriate for the citizens of Detroit so they could adequately understand the "purpose” of the bond issuance.
"Civic Center — Riverfront Stadium Development $1,500,000” is at best ambiguous.
Does "development” mean architectural plans? Does it mean preparation of a preliminary proposal? Does it mean site preparation? Does it mean beautification? Does it mean minor construction?
Does "Riverfront Stadium” refer to the existing arena? Does it refer to a new arena? If to a new arena, does it refer to a 20,000-seat arena? A 100,000-seat arena? A $20,000,000 arena? A $200,-000,000 arena?
Obviously, without extrinsic information, the reader of the notice cannot answer any of these questions. But the Legislature mandated that the notice itself should "adequately inform the electors and all other interested persons of the nature of the issue” and "state the * * * purpose thereof * * * >>
The record, viewed in its entirety, reflects the "purpose” of the bond issue was to cover architectural and engineering fees likely, coupled with initial site preparation expenses relating to the construction of a new 20,000-seat arena or stadium *173near Cobo Hall at a cost originally estimated to be $20,000,000.
In our opinion the notice did not inform the "electors and all other interested persons” of this "purpose” as required by the statute, and consequently the notice is inadequate.1
What is involved in this case is a proposal to partially finance a public project. In order for citizens to have adequate knowledge of the purpose of this limited bond issuance, and make a fair judgment as to the exercise of their referendum right, the notice must generally describe the nature of the final project then planned. A bond issue which finances only a part of a project must be placed in context with the whole project in order to understand the "purpose” of the issuance, as required by the statute.2 To interpret the statute otherwise would violate the Legislature’s intent.
In passing, it is only fair to say that the failure to communicate here seems to have been the product of "bureaucratese”, rather than any deliberate intent to deceive, for in almost all other respects the lessons of Alan appear to have been well learned and honestly and effectively applied. It is only hoped that, although this opinion is a minority opinion, its spirit will be as well applied in the future as the rest of Alan has in this case so that citizens whom the Legislature has sought to *174inform, and whom we all serve, will be "adequately” informed in the future.
The trial court should be affirmed for the reasons herein.

 While it may be objected that it isn’t practical to condense into the space of a notice the required information, that, of course, does not justify disregarding the statute. Furthermore, the necessary informative language would not have to be too cumbersome. For example, "Architectural, engineering and initial construction expenses for a new 20,000 seat Riverfront Arena to cost about $20,000,000— $1,500,000.”

 The fact that the introduction in the notice states "for the purpose of paying all or part of the cost” does nothing to describe the purpose of the bond issue as far as what the money is being spent for.