Knoxville's Community Development Corp. v. Knox County
| Citation | 665 S.W.2d 704 |
| Parties | KNOXVILLE'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. KNOX COUNTY, et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Decision Date | 17 February 1984 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Tennessee |
Kenneth E. Morror, Jon G. Roach, City Atty., Knoxville, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Dale C. Workman, Asst. Law Director, Knoxville, for defendants-appellants; Knox County Law Director, Knoxville, of counsel.
In this case the Chancellor held that Chapter 906 of the Tennessee Public Acts of 1982 violated Article XI, Section 8, of the state constitution and was therefore invalid. We affirm.
The statute purported to amend T.C.A. §§ 13-20-203(a) and 205(c) pertaining to the initiation and financing of redevelopment plans by municipal housing authorities.
In the case of Metropolitan Development & Housing Agency v. Leech, 591 S.W.2d 427 (Tenn.1979), this Court upheld statutes authorizing "tax increment financing" for housing redevelopment plans. Among the various attacks made upon the statutes was a claim that they improperly permitted the appropriation of county funds for municipal purposes and improperly diverted portions of county property taxes.
The statutes, as construed and upheld in that case, contained a uniform, state-wide plan for the financing of such projects. Under those statutes approval of the governing body of the municipality was required, but the statutes did not provide for approval by the governing body of the county within which the municipality was located.
Chapter 906 of Tennessee Public Acts 1982 amended the general laws by providing that in counties within a certain population bracket approval of the governing body of the affected county would be required as well as that of the municipality in the absence of an agreement exempting "the county property tax levy and all proceeds from it generated within the redevelopment project from the tax increment financing provisions specified in Tennessee Code Annotated 13-20-205(a)(2)."
The specified population bracket was for counties having a population of not less than 275,000 nor more than 325,000 persons according to the 1980 federal census or any subsequent federal census. Only Hamilton and Knox Counties fell within these provisions at the time of the enactment of the 1982 amendment. The amendment states no reasons why there should be such a departure from the general law in counties falling within the specified population bracket, nor was any factual basis for the classification developed in the trial of this case. It was suggested by counsel for a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Boyd
...member of the community, who may be able to bring himself within the provisions of such law. Citing Knoxville Community Development Corp. v. Knox County, 665 S.W.2d 704, 705 (Tenn.1984), he adds that if an act is local in effect and contravenes the general law, the provisions of Article XI,......
-
Hart v. City of Johnson City
...facts, nor does the reason for the population classification appear in the language of the Act. In Knoxville's Community Development Corp. v. Knox County, 665 S.W.2d 704, 705 (Tenn.1984), this Court The amendment states no reasons why there should be a departure from the general law in coun......
-
Nolichuckey Sand Co., Inc. v. Huddleston
...a single population bracket exempting only Hamilton and Knox counties from an otherwise statewide tax-increment financing scheme. 665 S.W.2d 704 (Tenn.1984). The Court again struck down the offending exemption, but left the underlying statutes 5 intact, despite the fact that neither the sta......
-
City of Oakland v. McCraw
...15 S.W.3d at 472 (citing State v. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 124 Tenn. 1, 135 S.W. 773, 775 (1911); Knoxville's Cmty. Dev. Corp. v. Knox County, 665 S.W.2d 704, 705 (Tenn.1984)). The reasonableness of a classification is determined upon the facts of the particular case. Huntsville, 15 ......