Outstanding reporter Rob Robb writes that the Arizona Court of Appeals made the correct decision in the Turken vs. Gordon case, when they ruled the almost one million dollar subsidy violated the Az Constitution. We totally agree with Mr. Robb's analysis.
Read his column here.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2009/01/06/20090106robb07.html
In his op-ed piece in the Jan. 13 Az Republic, Grady Gammage Jr. writes, "CityNorth ruling puts Arizona economy at risk." Not surprising that Mr Gammage is one of the attorneys representing CityNorth.
Read his op-ed here.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2009/01/13/20090113gammage13.html#comm
Our readers are welcome to offer their opinion with a comment.
9 comments:
Is Oro Valley considering any action based on this ruling or decision?
If not, why not?
We should be looking into what could possibly be done about the Vestar EDA
mscoyote, some time ago several of us had the pleasure of having a meeting with Clint Bolick, the lead attorney who won the appeal against the City of Phoenix; it was, at least at that time of 'our' meeting, his assessment that because of the time lapse, he doubted that we might be able to retroactively nullify the contract between the Town of Oro Valley and Vestar (I'm putting this as simply as I can and in the context as I understood it. Mr. Bolick, even though he was aware that the City North agreement was 'pending', he waited until a day or so after the Mayor of Phoenix signed it as a reality to file the action. The City North decision at least established a case history which would apply to 'similar' attempts going forward even though past 'violations' could be deemed as not having been in line with the dictates of the Arizona Constitution.
In response to "mscoyote" and anyone else that may be asking the same question, I can say the following:
Our Town Attorney, Tobin Rosen, our Town Manager, David Andrews, and I believe all the members of the Town Council are well aware of the recent Appeals Court decision, and will be formally discussing Oro Valley's options.
We must all keep in mind that the decision is not definitive. The defendants in the case may see fit to appeal the decision to the Az Supreme Court.
The following is an exerpt from an email I recently received from The Goldwater Institute.
"It is not clear to us yet how the Court of Appeals decision will affect past agreements (assuming the opinion is not appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court with a different outcome). Prior agreements may have to be researched on a case-by-case basis---"
I trust this answers the question.
I understand Mr. Bolick's comment that winning this case would at least set a precedent for other similar cases in the future...that subsidies are unlawful according to the AZ Constitution.
However, it just seems to me that if something violates the constitution, then it violates it from the date the constitution was ratified and not from the date that the Goldwater Institute won the case.
Therefore it should also apply to subsidies given PRIOR to the case (past violations) and not just to subsidies given SUBSEQUENT to the case.
Just my two cents.
VC, I'm no legal expert by any stretch, however, over the years I have found it to be VERY complicated. When I, quite some time ago, personally suggested to one of the principles in the Vestar deal that 'the deal' might not be legal in the 'eyes' of the AZ Constitution, he simply looked at me, shrugged his shoulders, and said " so what". As Art iterated, [the 'play' will probably continue].
So maybe Oro Valley should pull the tax-sharing deal from Vestar and when Vestar says "that's illegal," we'll all just shrug our shoulders and say, "So what?"
Then we'll tell Vestar that they can sue us if they don't like it and then we'll tell them that we'll be hiring the Goldwater Institute to represent us.
Sounds good to me, VC, but instead of the use of the word 'pull' how about 'void'. Wouldn't that open a 'can of worms'?
Zev, I was at the presentation and I could
could not remember the details that Clint provided when questioned about the court action being retroactive , so thanks, glad
some of us have a memory : ))
I sort of remember him saying something like most likely it would not be a retro date but that a court would or could decide but I could be wrong,
As of today I don't think there was any decision made to appeal the ruling but either way why can't OV then just decide that the EDA is
not enforceable because of the court case and then let Vestar fight it, why not?
mscoyote, as I stated or perhaps implied to VC, I agree with both of you.
Post a Comment