Club Jolliet, Inc. v. Manchester, No. 6047

• Court: Supreme Court of New Hampshire
• Writing for the Court: KENISON
• Citation: 110 N.H. 172,262 A.2d 844
• Decision Date: 12 March 1970
• Docket Number: No. 6047
• Parties: CLUB JOLLIET, INC. v. MANCHESTER et al.

Page 844

262 A.2d 844 110 N.H. 172 CLUB JOLLIET, INC.
v.
MANCHESTER et al. No. 6047. Supreme Court of New Hampshire. March 12, 1970.

[110 N.H. 173]

Page 845

Gerard O. Bergevin and Emile R. Bussiere, Manchester, for plaintiff.

J. Francis Roche, City Solicitor (by brief and orally), for defendant City of Manchester.

Broderick, Craig & Costakis, Manchester, and Vincent A. Wenners, Jr., Concord (William H. Craig, Manchester, orally), for defendant Manchester Housing Authority.

Devine, Millimet, McDonough, Stahl & Branch, Manchester (Joseph A. Millimet, Manchester, orally), for intervenors, Spaulding and Slye Corp. and New England Mutual Life Insurance Co., a joint venture known as the Hampshire Plaza Development Co. (the developer).

KENISON, Chief Justice.

The plaintiff is a voluntary corporation, property owner and taxpayer which seeks to enjoin and appeal from the actions of the Mayor and Board of Alderman of the City of Manchester, and the Manchester Housing Authority, in instituting a redevelopment project known as the Hampshire Plaza Project.

The standards and controls of the redevelopment plan are carefully and specifically detailed in the contracts, resolutions, votes, maps, plans, and regulations adopted and executed by the defendants, City of Manchester (City) and Manchester Housing Authority (Authority) and the developer. The essential facts are not in dispute. In its barest outline the redevelopment plan provides that the Authority would acquire by purchase or eminent domain a two-block area in downtown Manchester, demolish the buildings thereon, close certain streets, and add certain improvements including a public parking garage for 400 automobiles.

[110 N.H. 174] The redevelopment plan requires the developer to provide a landscaped plaza fronting on a major street, a public shopping mall with retail area, a multi-storied office building, an underground parking garage for 300 automobiles, and other improvements. The redevelopment project is not financed by federal funds. It involves a bond issue by the city of $5,230,000 which will pay for the property to be taken by eminent domain and attendant costs, as well as approximately $1,500,000 for the construction of the public parking garage. The rentals from the public parking garage will accrue to the city. The redevelopment plan contemplates that after clearance of the property the land will be transferred to the developer at its use value which will be less than the total acquisition cost.

The case was transferred by a judicial referee (Amos N. Blandin, Jr.,) whose findings and rulings included the following:

'6. The procedure followed by the Manchester Housing Authority and the Board of Mayor and Aldermen in adopting and approving the redevelopment project known as Hampshire Plaza was in accord with the standards and criteria established

Page 846

by RSA:205 and followed the practice established by the Authority and the City in prior projects in Manchester which were not federally funded. There was no violation of Part 1, Article 2 and Part 2, Article 5 of the New Hampshire Constitution.

'7. The condemnation of private property and the transfer of said property for development purposes at a price less than its pre-existing market value was authorized pursuant to a duly qualified redevelopment project under state law at a price fixed by two independent re-use appraisers retained by the Manchester Housing Authority and was, therefore, not a transfer at a price arbitrarily negotiated with the private developer nor in violation of Part 2, Article 5 of the New Hampshire Constitution.

'8. In declaring the area bounded by Spring, Elm, Mechanic, and Canal Streets as blighted, decadent and substandard the Manchester Housing Authority and the City have followed the standards of RSA:205 and have not acted arbitrarily, capriciously, confiscatorily, or in collusion with a private developer.

'9. Subject to the question being transferred concerning the applicability of RSA:252-A to the Hampshire Plaza Project, the resolution of the City of Manchester dated November 18, 1969, authorizing a bond issue in the amount of $5,230,000 for a locally financed redevelopment project is in accord with the applicable state statute (RSA:205) and is not unconstitutional.'

[110 N.H. 175] The two questions of law on which no ruling was made were:

'A. Can the Manchester Housing Authority build a public parking garage as part of a Redevelopment Project such as Hampshire Plaza under the powers conferred on it by RSA 205?

'B. Can the City of Manchester provide public funds to the Manchester Housing Authority for such a garage as part of a Redevelopment Project under RSA 205 without complying with the provisions of RSA 252-A (Supp.)?'

The Court (Grant, J.) transferred without ruling questions A and B, and included 'within the issues transfered the question of whether Part 2 Article 5 of the New Hampshire Constitution is violated by the construction of a public parking garage such as...