Home -> Law Blog Directory -> State Law Blogs -> Showmeblawgs

State Law

: Showmeblawgs

By stan_sipple

Opponents of St Peters "Premier 370" TIF development near Highway 370 will get their day in court after the Missouri Court of Appeals Western District reverses summary judgment the Cole County Circuit Court gave to the City to go ahead with its development project. Bad news for Premier 370 and St. Peters (Wake up call Missouri Blog) The court of appeals western district held summary judgment inappropriate because the City of St Peters did not produce facts establishing that no factual disputes exist. Great Rivers Habitat Alliance, et al, Appellant-Respondent, St. Charles County, Appellant-Respondent, v. City of St. Peters, et al., Respondent-Appellant, Office of Attorney General, Respondent.Case Number: WD67047, WD67048 and WD67049Handdown Date: 03/04/2008Appeal From: Circuit Court of Cole County, Hon. Thomas Joseph Brown, III, JudgeAn area is blighted if the "predominance of" an enumerated factor or factors leads to any of the enumerated resulting circumstances, all of which must be considered in light of the area's "present condition and use." The City argues that the redevelopment area, in its present condition, suffers from inadequate street layout and conditions that "endanger life or property by fire and other causes," to an extent that "constitutes an economic or social liability." In addition the TIF Act requires that a municipality must make additional findings before adopting a redevelopment plan under the Act. First, the City must find that the redevelopment area "has not been subject to growth and development through investment by private enterprise and would not reasonably be anticipated to be developed without the adoption of tax increment financing." Section 99.810.1(1). This finding is frequently referred to as the "but/for" finding, and this opinion will use that terminology.Secondly, the City must legislatively find that the redevelopment plan adopted "conforms to the comprehensive plan for the development of the municipality as a whole." Section 99.810.1(2). For ease of discussion, this opinion will refer to this as the finding of "conformity." In the instant case, the City has made all three statutorily required findings: blight, but/for, and conformity. On appeal, GRHA maintains that all three of these legislative findings are arbitrary and capricious. This contention is the central dispute in GRHA's underlying suit. That factual dispute must be resolved by way of the "fairly debatable" test. The city did not establish, by way of undisputed material facts, its right to judgment as a matter of law on these claims. Thus, summary judgment was inappropriate, and the cause must be remanded for a trial on those issues. Because the cause is being remanded for trial on the claims of arbitrary and capricious municipal actions, the alliance's remaining points on appeal need not be reached and the city's cross-appeal is premature.

Full post as published by Showmeblawgs on March 10, 2008 (boomark / email).