reiterating that the proper standard is “ ‘the generally limited scope of review’ we utilize in order ‘to determine whether the decision by the Board to rezone is fairly debatable’ ” (quoting Montgomery, 299 N.W.2d at 692 )
How later courts described this case
- reiterating that the proper standard is “ ‘the generally limited scope of review’ we utilize in order ‘to determine whether the decision by the Board to rezone is fairly debatable’ ” (quoting Montgomery, 299 N.W.2d at 692 )
- holding that correction of an error in the legal description of the notice does not void the city action when substantial compliance was achieved
- emphasizing that the legitimate government interest must have a basis in fact
- “The city council’s decision to rezone the . . . site was supported by the facts and was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. The city council made its decision after a full and lengthy consideration of the overall welfare of the city.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WIGGINS, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur with the majority decision. Our decision does not mean that the actions of the city council are not beyond the reach of the persons they were elected to serve. At the next election, the council’s actions are subject to review by the electorate. Under the separation-of-powers doctrine, “electoral control [is] an important restraint on legislative conduct.” Teague v. Mosley, 552 N.W.2d 646, 660 (Iowa 1996).