517 S.W.2d 36 (Mo. 1975), 58660, State ex rel. Atkinson v. Planned Indus. Expansion Authority of St. Louis

Docket Nº58660.
Citation517 S.W.2d 36
Party NameSTATE of Missouri ex rel. Willetta S. ATKINSON, Relator, v. PLANNED INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION AUTHORITY OF ST. LOUIS, Missouri, et al., Respondents.
Case DateJanuary 07, 1975
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri

Page 36

517 S.W.2d 36 (Mo. 1975)

STATE of Missouri ex rel. Willetta S. ATKINSON, Relator,

v.

PLANNED INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION AUTHORITY OF ST. LOUIS,

Missouri, et al., Respondents.

No. 58660.

Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.

January 7, 1975

Page 37

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 38

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 39

William Costello, St. Louis, for relator.

Richard A. Hetlage and Douglas L. Kelly, Peper, Martin, Jensen, Maichel & Hetlage, Kenneth R. Langsdorf, Gen. Counsel, Planned Industrial Expansion Authority, St. Louis, for respondent Planned Industrial Expansion Authority of St. Louis, Mo.

Jack L. Koehr, City Counselor, Joseph R. Niemann, Asst. City Counselor, St. Louis, for respondent City of St. Louis, a Municipal Corp.

Aaron A. Wilson, City Atty., Richard N. Ward, Asst. City Atty., Kansas City, for intervenor-respondent.

Page 40

PETITION FOR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF QUO WARRANTO

SEILER, Judge.

Original action in the nature of quo warranto filed in this court pursuant to Art. V., Sec. 4, Mo.Const.1945, V.A.M.S. Relator maintains the Planned Industrial Expansion Law, enacted in 1967, under which the respondent Planned Industrial Expansion Authority of St. Louis is claiming to exist and act, is unconstitutional in numerous respects, and hence said authority should be ousted from asserted rights, privileges and franchises it cannot constitutionally exercise. The city of St. Louis is a co-respondent and Kansas City, which also would like to make use of the law, has been permitted to intervene as a respondent. The facts as stipulated are as follows:

Willetta S. Atkinson, relator herein, is an individual whose property is subject to the purported power and authority of respondent authority. The authority is a public body corporate and politic purportedly created by the Planned Industrial Expansion Law, Secs. 100.310 to 100.620, RSMo 1969, V.A.M.S., and purportedly authorized to execute its powers, duties and functions by Ordinance No. 54788 of the city of St. Louis, passed and approved on December 11, 1967.

The authority and the city have taken steps required by the act to approve 'the Manchester-Chouteau Industrial Development Plan' which contemplates the industrial reconstruction and redevelopment of some 40 acres of vacant and improved property. The plan includes the authority and intention to exercise the power of eminent domain granted by Sec. 100.420 of the act to acquire property within the project area in order to fulfill the plan's objectives.

The authority has been in contact with and has received letters of interest in becoming lessees of industrial facilities from several industries concerning facilities to be constructed within the Manchester-Chouteau area, and proposes to issue revenue bonds pursuant to Sec. 100.430 of the act. The property owned by relator lies within this area and is among the properties set forth in the plan which the authority expects to acquire by eminent domain.

The authority and the city have also taken steps required by the act to approve the 'Hereford Street Industrial Development Plan' involving approximately 7 1/4 acres. The ordinance adopted by the city approving the Hereford Street plan also granted tax benefits of Chapter 353, RSMo 1969, as authorized by Sec. 100.570 of the act, to any urban development corporation acquiring property within the project area, and was approved by a vote of more than three-fourths of the governing body of the city. The authority and the city have also taken steps to approve and accept a development project within this area for construction of a 130,000 square foot industrial facility for lease to Paramount Liquor Company; the authority has prepared a lease agreement and a mortgage and indenture of trust for the Paramount Liquor Company project in connection therewith. The authority intends to issue two million dollars of revenue bonds to acquire land and construct facilities for the project, and the authority and the company intend to enter into the above mentioned agreements, which cover the revenue bonds and the project.

Pursuant to actions taken by the authority it has accepted property donated by the ABEX Corporation and has entered a contract to sell said property to the Browning Ferris Company. The authority has begun action to have other areas in the city of St. Louis declared eligible for development by the city and by the authority.

An outline of the Planned Industrial Expansion Law and its provisions is in order. Each city in Missouri with a population of 400,000 or more is authorized by the act to activate, by resolution or ordinance, an

Page 41

'authority', consisting of twenty-five commissioners, which is to prepare and submit industrial redevelopment plans to the governing body of the city. These plans or projects must be consistent with the general plans for the development of the city as a whole; the governing body of the city must find, by resolution or ordinance, that blighted, insanitary and undeveloped industrial areas exist in the community, the development of which is necessary in the interest of the public safety, welfare, health or morals. Upon approval of a project by the city, an authority is given the power to acquire land in the project area by eminent domain or by other conveyance, to issue bonds, to provide reasonable assistance for the relocation of families displaced by a project, to contract for all services needed in connection with clearance in the project area, to sell, lease or otherwise convey the property it has acquired to developers for industrial or related purposes in accordance with the plan after public notice and the invitation of bids, to make necessary conveyances or contracts with the city for streets, sewers or other public facilities, and to exercise all powers or combinations of powers necessary, convenient or appropriate to carry out its projects. The city and other public bodies are authorized to assist these projects by investing in or granting funds to an authority, by dedicating streets and other necessary public facilities to the project in accordance with the plan, by furnishing administrative or other services, by transferring interests in property to an authority, and by zoning or rezoning in accordance with the plan. Other provisions of the act provide that the income from the bonds issued by an authority shall be exempt from income taxation, and that upon three-fourths approval by the governing body of the city, certain ad valorem tax relief may be granted to urban development corporations involved in the development of the project areas. The act is to be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes.

Similar urban development legislation in Missouri has withstood constitutional challenge. Chapter 353, RSMo 1969, channels private enterprise into public improvement activities by providing for the creation of private 'urban redevelopment corporations.' These corporations are closely supervised by the governing body of the city to insure that their projects are in the public interest. They are subject to a limitation on their profits, but are granted a limited power of eminent domain and certain ad valorem tax benefits on the property which they improve. The provisions of Chapter 353 were upheld as constitutional in Annbar Associates v. West Side Redevelopment Corporation, 397 S.W.2d 635 (Mo.banc 1965), appeal dismissed, 385 U.S. 5, 87 S.Ct. 41, 17 L.Ed.2d 4 (1966).

Other urban development legislation is found in Chapter 99, RSMo 1969 (Secs. 99.300 to 99.660), which provides for the creation of 'land clearance for redevelopment authorities.' These authorities are public bodies empowered to make plans for and execute the clearance of blighted and insanitary areas and their subsequent redevelopment through 'land clearance projects' and 'urban renewal projects.' An authority under this act is given the power to issue bonds to finance its projects, to acquire property by eminent domain, to clear such property and transfer it to private enterprises for redevelopment in accordance with the project plans. Again, these activities are closely monitored by appropriate governing bodies, which insure that a public purpose is achieved. We have upheld the constitutionality of this act in State on inf. Dalton v. Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority, 364 Mo. 974, 270 S.W.2d 44 (1954) and Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority v. City of St. Louis, 270 S.W.2d 58 (Mo.banc 1954).

We have also held that an 'urban redevelopment corporation', as defined in Chapter 353, is entitled to the ad valorem tax benefits prescribed by that chapter when it acquires property for redevelopment

Page 42

from a 'land clearance and redevelopment authority' pursuant to Chapter 99, Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority v. City of St. Louis, supra, at 64--65.

The present legislation, the Planned Industrial Expansion Law, is similar to the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Law, Chapter 99. The only significant difference lies in the former's emphasis on the elimination of blighted industrial areas and subsequent industrial redevelopment. We reach the questions presented by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 practice notes
  • 536 S.W.3d 750 (Mo.App. E.D. 2017), ED105125, Neuner v. City of St. Louis
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals of Missouri
    • 19 Septiembre 2017
    ...benefit ‘more’ by reason of the legislation." State ex rel. Atkinson v. Planned Indus. Expansion Auth. of St. Louis, 517 S.W.2d 36, 45 (Mo. banc 1975). " Rather, the rule is that if the primary purpose of the act is public, the fact that special benefits m......
  • 742 S.W.2d 146 (Mo. 1987), 69317, Tierney v. Planned Indus. Expansion Authority of Kansas City
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 15 Diciembre 1987
    ...They do not challenge the proposition, established in State ex rel. Atkinson v. Planned Industrial Expansion Authority of St. Louis, 517 S.W.2d 36 (Mo. banc Page 151 1975) and confirmed in other cases such as Allright Missouri, Inc. v. Civic Plaza Redevelopment Corporation, supra, that a bl......
  • 780 S.W.2d 639 (Mo. 1989), 71414, Callier v. Director of Revenue, State of Mo.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 12 Diciembre 1989
    ...Lemay v. Smith, 353 Mo. 807, 184 S.W.2d 593, 595 (banc 1945). See also State ex rel. Atkinson v. Planned Industrial Expansion Authority, 517 S.W.2d 36, 43-44 (Mo. banc 1975); State ex inf. Barker v. Southern, 177 S.W. 640, 643 (Mo. banc 1915). No extended discussion or citation of authoriti......
  • 780 S.W.2d 639 (Mo. 1989), 71414, Callier v. Director of Revenue, State of Mo.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 12 Diciembre 1989
    ...Lemay v. Smith, 353 Mo. 807, 184 S.W.2d 593, 595 (banc 1945). See also State ex rel. Atkinson v. Planned Industrial Expansion Authority, 517 S.W.2d 36, 43-44 (Mo. banc 1975); State ex inf. Barker v. Southern, 177 S.W. 640, 643 (Mo. banc 1915). No extended discussion or citation of authoriti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 cases
  • 536 S.W.3d 750 (Mo.App. E.D. 2017), ED105125, Neuner v. City of St. Louis
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals of Missouri
    • 19 Septiembre 2017
    ...benefit ‘more’ by reason of the legislation." State ex rel. Atkinson v. Planned Indus. Expansion Auth. of St. Louis, 517 S.W.2d 36, 45 (Mo. banc 1975). " Rather, the rule is that if the primary purpose of the act is public, the fact that special benefits m......
  • 742 S.W.2d 146 (Mo. 1987), 69317, Tierney v. Planned Indus. Expansion Authority of Kansas City
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 15 Diciembre 1987
    ...They do not challenge the proposition, established in State ex rel. Atkinson v. Planned Industrial Expansion Authority of St. Louis, 517 S.W.2d 36 (Mo. banc Page 151 1975) and confirmed in other cases such as Allright Missouri, Inc. v. Civic Plaza Redevelopment Corporation, supra, that a bl......
  • 780 S.W.2d 639 (Mo. 1989), 71414, Callier v. Director of Revenue, State of Mo.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 12 Diciembre 1989
    ...Lemay v. Smith, 353 Mo. 807, 184 S.W.2d 593, 595 (banc 1945). See also State ex rel. Atkinson v. Planned Industrial Expansion Authority, 517 S.W.2d 36, 43-44 (Mo. banc 1975); State ex inf. Barker v. Southern, 177 S.W. 640, 643 (Mo. banc 1915). No extended discussion or citation of authoriti......
  • 780 S.W.2d 639 (Mo. 1989), 71414, Callier v. Director of Revenue, State of Mo.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 12 Diciembre 1989
    ...Lemay v. Smith, 353 Mo. 807, 184 S.W.2d 593, 595 (banc 1945). See also State ex rel. Atkinson v. Planned Industrial Expansion Authority, 517 S.W.2d 36, 43-44 (Mo. banc 1975); State ex inf. Barker v. Southern, 177 S.W. 640, 643 (Mo. banc 1915). No extended discussion or citation of authoriti......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Tipping point: Missouri single subject provision.
    • United States
    • Missouri Law Review Vol. 72 Nbr. 4, September 2007
    • 22 Septiembre 2007
    ...Inc. v. State Envtl. Improvement Auth., 518 S.W.2d 68 (Mo. 1975) (en banc); State ex rel. Atkinson v. Planned Indus. Expansion Auth., 517 S.W.2d 36 (Mo. 1975) (en banc); State ex rel. McClellan v. Godfrey, 519 S.W.2d 4 (Mo. 1975) (en banc); Mo. State Park Bd. v. McDaniel, 513 S.W.2d 447 (Mo......
  • Debt Limits' End
    • United States
    • Iowa Law Review Nbr. 102-3, March 2017
    • 1 Marzo 2017
    ...when payable through revenues from facilities’ lease or sale); State ex rel Atkinson v. Planned Indus. Expansion Auth. of St. Louis, 517 S.W.2d 36, 47 (Mo. 1975) (“If the obligation to be incurred is payable solely from income derived from the operation of the proposed improvement, the obli......