2005_0516_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Keith M. Stidd, Esq. Page 9 September 27, 1972 admin:tstratlon of the affairs of the city) is pertinent. By that rationale.J the proposal to construct t;l, stadium in Minneapolis, the construction of which would be paid for with the proceeds of . general obligation bonds of the city, would appear to be amenable to an advisory vote$ notwithstandin& the legally administrative 6 . nature of the ded.sien. By the same :t'at:tonale" it would appear that an advisory vote could not be taken concerning inclusion or withdrawal of an area in urban renewal or Model Cities, under the present facts and circumstances. ~. a~s2., Hous~n~ and Redevelop- tp_~p~_Authorit..Y ~r.!,!il1~e?-Eol:ts v.~..Mlnne.aE~llsj ~.YP~:C:.8; n. 5, ,198 N.W.2d at 537-538 (19'72); Kram~p v.<~Ynion J:E..ee ?S:Do.91 Q!.~.l. No_, ~2., 395 U.8. 621 (1969) i and Minn. Laws 19719 oh. 745. ~a 9 and 16, which repeals authority for referenda formerly provided in section 462.465. 1s- sues of state and federal preemption are also raised as to these questions. 6. To the extent elected officials bind themselves to the results of such an advisory vote, they prejudice the validity of the vote, s~nce it then takea on the characteristics of !;in imper- missible ref'el"emc!um. In Hous:tng and Redevelopment Authority of Minneapolis v. Minneapolis, supra n. 5, our Supreme Court specif- ically alluded. to usale of mu.nicipal bondsll as a subject which did not permit use of a referendum. 198 N.W.2d at 537 (1972).