Opinion

CLEAN v. City of Spokane

  • 133 Wash. 2d 455
Court
Washington Supreme Court
Filed
Nov 13, 1997
Status
Published
Author
Guy
On the bench
Douliver, Durham, Guy, Madsen, Sanders
Cited by
41 cases
Authority
More cited than 16.0%

“Although Appellants may view the transaction as an unwise use of public funds that unduly benefits the Developers, the wisdom of the plan is not for this court to consider.”

How later courts described this case

  • “Although Appellants may view the transaction as an unwise use of public funds that unduly benefits the Developers, the wisdom of the plan is not for this court to consider.”
  • declaratory and injunctive relief sought
  • courts may clarify dictum-created ambiguities

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Guy, J.

(concurring) — I concur in the result of the majority opinion. I write separately to explain my position on the issue regarding the emergency clause of the Spokane City Charter. While I dissented in CLEAN v. State, 130 Wn.2d 782 , 928 P.2d 1054 (1996), concerning the Stadium *476 Act and whether raising money for the building of a new baseball stadium was an "emergency,” I lost that issue. I now defer to the decision of the majority on this issue. If the funding of a new stadium for the Mariners was valid emergency legislation, then a legislative body’s conclusion that the redevelopment and revitalization of a downtown area may also be such legislation. The majority of this Court essentially held in the Mariners’ case that the economic welfare of a region may give rise to the kind of "emergency” for which emergency legislation may be validly used. Therefore, we held that when a legislative body decides that the economic welfare of a region is an emergency in a given setting, then the majority of this court will defer to the judgment of that legislative body.

I also write separately to disagree with the conclusion of the dissent that the danger to be remedied in Spokane is not emergent because "the economic decline has already happened.” Dissent at 489. That is not so. Elected officials have a duty to strive to keep alive the economic vitality of their city. The downtown of Spokane is the center of that city and surrounding area. To allow a downtown to lose its business activity is to allow its people to lose their sense of belonging to the community. It is within the duty of city officials to attempt to keep their downtown safe, convenient and economically healthy.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.