pf_03135 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

. 1 ~f, , ""ltI . . ; . ,~ . .1 ; . - :1' ; f' '" ~ r . .. " t j-' <- '.' r ";' ( , l' '.:!. ..:efI. : <' - ~ .> . . , , 1 "l''t ;I~ J~ . I ~;. .. -. '{1 1,; ." ~-:4;: '. ,:~": ~' A:.&~; . 1'/' ,,' ;.&,,: ;~tt 'ii' ~i' ;;:,:~ ~:~'t ;6. ~ ;r~ ::ie" ~. ;jJ: ~~. ...", ~+.~ ~7 ~: :~~; ~~~~ ~r ~j:' ~:;'(;'. ~.~~~ 't;.l\ ;~~'.~'~ ~t ~~t' t~.\: ~~:'~. ;1.._ ;.''':: >:;;0',_ r ';~ . '. C.f ~. '~: .... \ ';r 288 Minn. 552 NORTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES 1980) (footnote omitted). The McShane en- terprise function analysis applies only when a "specific governmental enterprise takes an effective easement." Thompson, 455 N.W.2d at 517. [8] Arcadia's governmental enterprise ar- gument is based on its claim that the City's 1963 rezoning decision and the resulting in- crease in property taxes were part of a clear policy by the City to eliminate Collins Park so that the property could be put to a higher real estate tax generating use. The issue, is not whether the City's actions since 1963 evidence a governmental enterprise, but whether the ordinance waz designed specifi- cally to benefit a governmental enterprise or take an effective easement, such as the mu- nicipal airport in McShane, 292 N.W.2d at 258. We cannot conclude that an easement has been taken or that the ordinance ~ designed to benefit a specific governmental enterprise. II. [9] When legislation is not based on a suspect class and does not infringe on a fundamental right, it need only be rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose in order to withstand federal equal protection or substantive due process challenges. See Federal Communications Comm'n v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313, 113 S.Ct. 2096, 2101, 124 L.Ed.2d 211 (1993); Usery v. Turner Elklwm Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 15, 96 S.Ct. 2882, 2892, 49 L.Ed.2d 752 (1976) (legislation adjusting burdens and benefits of economic life presumed constitu- tional and burden on challenger to establish legislature acted arbitrarily or iITationally). Legislation will fail rational basis review only when it rests on grounds irrelevant to the achievement of a plausible governmental ob- jective. Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 323, 113 S.Ct. 2637, 2645, 125 L.Ed.2d 257 (1993). [10] Essentially the same analysis and standa.rQs apply under the Minnesota Consti- tution. Legislation is constitutional so long as it serves to promote a public purpose; is not an unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious 3. As previously noted, the legislative history of the 1987 t;nabling statute, fully explains the pecu- interference with a private interest; and the means chosen bear a rational relation to the public purpose sought to be served. Gruss- ing v. Kvam Implement Co., 478 N.W.2d 200 202 (Minn.App.1991). ' [11] Because the ordinance substantially advances a legitimate governmental purpose under the takings analyses, it satisfies this deferential rational basis test for equal pro- tection and substantive due process pur- poses. See Concrete Pipe, 508 U.S. at 640, 113 S.Ct. at 2289 (given that employer's due process arguments are unavailing, "it would be surprising indeed to discover" that legisla- tion nonetheless violates takings clause); see also Minnesota v. CWver Leaf Creamery Co., . 449 U.S. 456, 470 n. 12, 101 S.Ct. 715, 727 n. 12, 66 L.Ed.2d 659 (1981) (if legislation does not violate equal protection, it does not vio- late substantive due process either); Skeen v. State, 505 N.W.2d 299, 312 (Minn.1993) (stan- dard applied to claims brought under state equal protection clause same as that applied to claims brought under fedel"cU equal protec- tion clause); State v. Morrow, 492 N.W.2d 539, 547 (Minn.App.1992) (constitutional chal- lenge under either due process or equal pro- tection of federal or state constitutions raise similar questions). Arcadia questions the ''real'' or "actual" motives for the ordinance and insists that the ordinance is ''irrational,'' presumably because the City could have done more to protect park owners' private financial interests. Ar- cadia asserts that a remand is necessary for a trial on precisely what the City meant in the preamble of the ordinance by the refer- ence to "the peculiar nature and problems presented by closure or conversion of manu- factured home parks." 3 In doing so, Arcadia attempts improperly to shift the burden to prove the constitutionality of the ordinance onto the City. [12-14] Arcadia further criticizes the City for failing to make written findings in support of its decision to adopt the ordi- nance. See Honn v. City of Coon Rapids, 313 N.W.2d 409, 416 (Minn.1981) (municipali- ties should prepare contemporaneous find- \' f r ~ 1 r ." 0" <. ., liar nature and problems associated with closure of a mobile home park.