Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Minneapolis v. City of Minneapolis

• Decision Date: 26 May 1972
• Docket Number: No. 42872,42872
• Parties: HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, et al., Respondents, v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, et al., Respondents, Leo A. Bernat, et al., Intervenors, Appellants.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 531

198 N.W.2d 531

293 Minn. 227

HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, et al., Respondents, v. CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS, et al., Respondents, Leo A. Bernat, et al., Intervenors, Appellants.

No. 42872.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

May 26, 1972.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Minneapolis has standing to challenge the propriety of an election to approve or disapprove a proposed charter amendment of the city of Minneapolis which it claims is unconstitutional.

2. The question of enjoining an election is not a jurisdictional one but is a matter of judicial propriety. Where the proposal to be voted on is manifestly unconstitutional, it is proper for the court to enjoin the election.

3. A proposed charter amendment which merely confers a right of initiative and referendum respecting ordinances is valid.

4. A proposed charter amendment which purports to confer a right of referendum respecting 'any action' taken by the city council is invalid.

5. A proposed charter amendment which permits a referendum on whether a renewal project shall be initiated is unconstitutional if it applies to projects already proposed and limits voting to those residing in the area affected.

6. Where all provisions of a proposed charter amendment except one are found to be invalid, the remaining provision Held not to be severable so as to require the city council to hold an election on the question of its adoption.

Keith D. Kennedy, Minneapolis, for appellants.

Fredrikson, Byron, Colburn, Bisbee, Hansen & Perlman, and Terence M. Fruth, Minneapolis, for Housing and Redevelopment Authority.

Keith M. Stidd, City Atty., George V. Johnson, Asst. City Atty., Minneapolis, for City of Minneapolis.

Heard and considered en banc.

OTIS, Justice.

This is an action brought by two residents of the city of Minneapolis and the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Minneapolis against the city and members of its council for an injunction to prevent defendants from submitting to the voters a proposed charter amendment or for a declaratory judgment holding the proposed amendment unconstitutional. The trial court enjoined the city from conducting the election. The intervenors, who are proponents of the proposed amendment, appeal. ¹ We affirm.

On March 19, 1970, a petition, signed by more than 15,000 Minneapolis residents obtained largely through intervenors' efforts, presented the proposed amendment to the Minneapolis City Council. Pursuant to Minn.Const. art. 11, § 4, and Minn.St. 410.12, subd. 4, it was incumbent upon the city to submit the proposal to qualified voters for approval or disapproval. This suit to prevent the election followed on April 2, 1970. The court granted intervenors leave to appear and answer.

The proposed charter amendment contained four distinct provisions, which are set out in full herewith:

'PETITION

'To: Charter Commission of the City of Minneapolis, Minnesota

'A committee of electors submit the following proposed charter amendment to the Minneapolis City Charter in accordance with Minnesota Statute 410.12 and Minnesota Constitution Article XI, Section 4.

'Committee of Electors

'Elizabeth M. Wood, 2105 Emerson Ave. N.; John A. S. Webster, 2213 Nicollet Ave.; Richard W. LeRoy, 4705 Fremont Ave. S.; Leo A. Bernat, 503 15th Ave. S.E.; Frank S. Preston, Jr., 4901 Abbott Ave. S.

'PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT

'That Chapter 4 of the City Charter of the City of Minneapolis be amended by adding thereto a new Section 23 to read as follows:

'CHAPTER 4--CITY COUNCIL--POWERS--DUTIES, ETC.

'Section 23. Initiative and Referendum.

'23(a). Notwithstanding any provisions of the Minneapolis City Charter to the contrary, upon the filing with the City Clerk of petitions signed by more than 5,000 registered voters of the City demanding that a proposed ordinance, described in said petitions, be submitted to the electorate for approval or disapproval, the City Council shall order a special election for that purpose to be held not later than 120 days from the date of the filing of said petitions with the City Clerk. If a general election is to be held within the said 120 day period, the question may be presented to the electorate at such general election. All petitions circulated with respect to such proposed ordinance shall be uniform in character, shall have attached thereto a summary of the proposed ordinance, and shall have been signed by the petitioners not more than six months prior to the filing of said petitions. If a majority of the voters of the City voting on the question shall vote to approve the proposed ordinance it shall become effective as an ordinance of the City of Minneapolis as though it had been adopted by a two-thirds vote of the City Council after return by the Mayor with objections thereto. Any ordinance so adopted by the electorate may be repealed only by vote of the electorate at a regular or special election in accordance with a resolution adopted by a two-thirds vote of the City Council or in accordance with petitions duly filed as required herein for the adoption of such ordinance.

'23(b). Notwithstanding any provisions of the Minneapolis City Charter to the contrary, upon the filing with the City Clerk of petitions signed by more than 5,000 registered voters of the City demanding that any action, described in said petitions, which has been taken by the City Council within 90 days of the filing of said petitions be submitted to the electorate for approval or disapproval, the City Council shall order a special election for that purpose not later than 120 days from the date of the filing of said petitions with the City Clerk. If a general election is to be held within the said 120 day period, the question may be presented to the electorate at said general election. All petitions circulated with respect to such action shall be uniform in character and shall have attached thereto a summary setting forth the action taken by the City Council. If a majority of the voters of the City voting on the question shall vote to disapprove the action taken by the City Council such action shall be invalid and action of a substantially similar nature shall not again be adopted by the City Council until the expiration of two years from the date of the election at which such action is rejected.

'23(c). Notwithstanding any provisions of the Minneapolis City Charter to the contrary, no State and/or Federally financed Public Redevelopment Project of Urban Renewal, or Neighborhood Development Plan, or Model Cities Plan, or any other State and/or Federally financed urban renewal project shall be initiated, undertaken, and/or constructed until a special election is first held in the specific area to be redeveloped, in accordance with the laws relating to special elections, and a majority of the voters in the specific area to be redeveloped approve the proposed project. This provision shall apply to all such urban renewal projects heretofore proposed or to be proposed in the future.

'23(d). The provisions of Section 23 shall be severable and the invalidity of any one provision shall not affect the validity of the remainder of Section 23.'

The trial court found, among other things, that plaintiffs had no adequate remedy at law; that the proposed amendment was vague, ambiguous, and incapable of implementation; and that in areas of urban renewal 'non-resident voters including owners of property, owners of industrial plants and businesses, as well as non-resident employees employed in the areas, have substantial interests in whether the area designated by HRA should be renewed. The proposal would deny to these non-resident city voters the right to vote on renewal projects which directly affect them.' The court concluded that the cost of a special election would cause irreparable harm to taxpayers. It further held that the proposal was in violation of Minn.Const. art. 11, § 3, art. 1, § 2, art. 4, § 27, and art. 7; and U.S.Const. Amend. XIV. In an accompanying memorandum the court pointed out that in some renewal areas there are only a few family residences but many retail establishments and industrial plants owned and operated by nonresident employers and employees. By the terms of proposed provision 23(c), such persons would not be entitled to vote on whether a proposed renewal project should be undertaken.

As to provision 23(b), the court stated that to require a referendum not only on ordinances, but also on 'actions' of the city council would create a 'chaotic situation,' disrupting the routine activities of the council. The court was of the opinion that interested citizens had ample opportunity to air their views before the city council and the planning commission, and that this was the approach the legislature had in mind. ²

1. Intervenors challenge the standing of the housing authority (hereafter referred to as HRA) because it is not, strictly speaking, a taxpayer and cannot show a threat of 'irreparable harm.' While it is true that HRA is a tax-exempt branch of government, nevertheless, under Minn.St. 462.575 and 462.585 it is charged a percentage of rentals for the services and facilities furnished its projects by the municipality. There is no dispute but that the holding of a special election would cost the city $42,420. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion HRA has sufficient standing to bring these proceedings. In any event the standing of the individual plaintiffs is unchallenged.

2. A more difficult question is whether a court of equity is authorized to enjoin an election on what is essentially a legislative matter. Intervenors cite Bardwell v. Parish Council, 216 La. 537, 44 So.2d 107, 19 A.L.R.2d 514 (1949). There, the court held that an election on a proposed charter amendment may not be enjoined despite its dubious validity. The action was said to be premature and the threatened injury not irreparable. The court relied on the general rule that an...