82-046 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MR. COLESTOCK: I tried to make that arrangement with Charlotte and she was unable to get the people together on such short notice. . COUNCILMAN MULCAHY: One further question for you Mr. Steilen. You referred, and Mr. Popovich referred also to U. S. Code Section 1983. In dealing with less knowledgeable persons, would you mind telling the less knowledgeable members of the Council what it is we have to be concerned about in terms of U. S. Code Section 1983 so that we don't misstep? MR. STEILEN: That code section, as Mr. Popovich correctly said, doesn't deal specifically with special assessments and how you assess them and what the correct procedures are. What it does say is that if you deprive someone of their rights without due process, then that person has the right to sue you for attorney's fees, punitive damages and so on. It goes beyond the days of old when city councils - their only risk was that if the assessment was appealed that they might lose the assessment. It allows the landowner to recover some of the investments that they make in appealing an assessment. MR. POPOVICH: May I comment on that section? There hasn't been a case in the country where a special assessment has been challenged under 1983, where attorney's fees have been granted under that section. It's a new theory and I commend them because that's what lawyers are supposed to do - figure out new material. There are lots of tricks to theory and winning. The practical problem is that Section 1983 has been on the law books for years and years and years and it comes up in connection with discrimina- tion cases - female sports and male sports, discrimination in hiring and employment practices. That's where it has come up in the last number of years. As you follow the interpretations of 1983 - in fact, many of the justices - it's a federal law - have been wondering if the interpretations are far too broad and much more than the original (inaudible) wanted it to be. It's a novel theory and r compliment counsel for eoming up with it, but the gist is - they're going to rise or fall on an appeal in Minnesota - if they go to court - under our local improvement code and was the property benfitted and to what extent. That's what it boils down to. . 14R. STEILEN: As Mr. Popovich said, we defend cities and represent cities as well as landowners and currently we are - insurance companies as well as representing cities - and we are currently defending some 40 lawsuits using this exact theory. Mr. Popovich is right - there is no decision right now because the Supreme Court only came down with this theory a year and a half ago. There will be plenty of opportunities for this theory to be justified if any of these 40 cases are successful. COUNCIL~~N MULCAHY: (Inaudible) were you on the other side, would you be willing to have the following statement recited to you - that any special assessment adopted in excess of the special benefit constitutes a denial of constitutional rights? 19