Smith v. Independence Tax Increment Finance Com'n, WD
| Citation | 919 S.W.2d 292 |
| Decision Date | 09 April 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Parties | Darrell SMITH and Kirby Minor, Appellants, v. INDEPENDENCE TAX INCREMENT FINANCE COMMISSION and City of Independence, Respondents. 51251. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Missouri (US) |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County; The Honorable William W. Ely, Judge.
Joseph Borich, Leawood, KS, for appellants.
Steven Mauer, Kansas City, for respondents.
Before SPINDEN, P.J., and BERREY and LAURA DENVIR STITH, JJ.
Independence residents, Darrell Smith and Kirby Minor, are unhappy with the city's allowing Homart Development Company to receive preferential tax treatment under a tax increment financing (TIF) plan 1 for development of a shopping center. The circuit court granted the city's and the TIF Commission's motion for summary judgment. We affirm.
The disputed site was a vacant, 56-acre lot on the north side of 39th Street across from the Independence Center Mall. More than $200,000 in taxes assessed against the tract remained unpaid. Homart was willing to build a shopping center on the land if it could get preferential tax treatment. In 1994, Homart, with city officials' assistance, began preparing a proposed TIF plan for the tract.
Homart's proposed redevelopment plan said the site suffered: (1) defective or inadequate street layout; (2) debris dumping, including abandoned equipment, a tractor trailer body and a dilapidated mobile home; (3) improper or obsolete subdivision platting; (4) obsolete land uses; (5) inadequate water service; and (6) "conditions which retard the provision of adequate housing, constitute an economic or social liability or a menace to public health, safety, morals or welfare." It also contended that putting a shopping center on the tract would increase area employment, would enhance the city's tax base, and would discourage commerce, industry or manufacturing from moving to another state. It suggested that the site could be designated as being in either a blighted area or an economic development area.
These designations were significant because, for the tract to qualify for a TIF plan, § 99.810(1) 2 required that it be declared to be in a "blighted area" or an "economic development area." 3 Section 99.805(1) defines a "blighted area:"
[A]n area which, by reason of the predominance of defective or inadequate street layout, insanitary or unsafe conditions, deterioration of site improvements, improper subdivision or obsolete platting, or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire and other causes, or any combination of such factors, retards the provision of housing accommodations or constitutes an economic or social liability or a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare in its present condition and use[.]
Section 99.805(3) defines an "economic development area:" [A]ny area or portion of an area located within the territorial limits of a municipality, which does not meet the requirements of [a blighted or conservation area], and in which the governing body of the municipality finds that redevelopment is in the public interest because it will:
(a) Discourage commerce, industry or manufacturing from moving their operations to another state; or
(b) Result in increased employment in the municipality; or
(c) Result in preservation or enhancement of the tax base of the municipality[.]
Before the TIF commission reviewed Homart's proposal, it sent notices that it would consider the plan at a public hearing on August 31, 1994. Many individuals attended the hearing and spoke for and against the project. After the hearing, the commission found that the project area was "a blighted area and/or an economic development area" and recommended that Independence's city council adopt the plan. The city council adopted the plan on November 21, 1994, by enacting Ordinance No. 12890, after concluding that the project site was in a blighted area.
Smith and Minor filed their petition for declaratory judgment on November 4, 1994, in which they asked the circuit court to declare that the TIF plan was illegal and unconstitutional. The city and TIF commission answered the petition on December 5, 1994, and filed a motion for summary judgment on March 17, 1995. The circuit court granted the city's and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matter of Elsie Swearingen v. Dryden
...does not comply with Rule 84.04(d) and preserves nothing for appellate review." Smith v. Independence Tax Increment Finance Comm'n., 919 S.W.2d 292, 294 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996); In re Marriage of Kempf, 825 S.W.2d 667, 668 (Mo. App. S.D. 1992). The requirement that "the point relied on clearly......
-
Craig v. Craig, WD 84571
...for appellate review." In re Swearingen , 42 S.W.3d 741, 747 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001) (quoting Smith v. Indep. Tax Increment Fin. Comm'n , 919 S.W.2d 292, 294 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996) ). And, in fact, "[a] party's failure to comply with the requirements set forth in Rule 84.04(d) constitutes ground......
-
Craig v. Craig, WD84571
...for appellate review." In re Swearingen, 42 S.W.3d 741, 747 (Mo. App. W.D. 2001) (quoting Smith v. Indep. Tax Increment Fin. Comm'n, 919 S.W.2d 292, 294 (Mo. App. W.D. 1996)). And, in fact, "[a] party's failure to comply with the requirements set forth in Rule 84.04(d) constitutes grounds f......
-
Gifford v. Geosling, WD
...added). Failure to comply with Rule 84.04(d) preserves nothing for appellate review. Smith v. Independence Tax Increment Fin. Comm'n, 919 S.W.2d 292, 294 Here, appellants' Points II through V simply state the rulings of law claimed to be erroneous, but fail to state wherein and why the ruli......