State ex rel. Idaho State Park Bd. v. City of Boise, By and Through Amyx, 11059
Decision Date | 07 May 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 11059,11059 |
Citation | 95 Idaho 380,509 P.2d 1301 |
Parties | The STATE of Idaho ex rel. the IDAHO STATE PARK BOARD, consisting of Wilhelm M. Beckert et al., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF BOISE, Idaho, a political subdivision of the State of Idaho, By and Through its Mayor, Jay S. AMYX, and its Council Members, et al., and County of Ada, a political subdivision of the State of Idaho, by the Board of County Commissioners, consisting of Rulon Swensen, et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
W. Anthony Park, Atty. Gen., Donald E. Knickrehm, Asst. Atty. Gen., Boise, for plaintiff-appellant.
Elbert E. Gass, James E. Risch, Boise, for defendants-respondents.
This is an appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of Boise City and Ada County on the basis that legislation creating the Idaho Veterans' Memorial Park violates the constitutional prohibition against local or special laws. The sole issue on this appeal is the constitutionality of the legislation in question.
This case marks another in the protracted series of legal battles between the State of Idaho on the one side and Boise City and Ada County on the other. The dispute focuses on a piece of property located in Boise, Idaho known as the Old Soldiers' Home. For many years this property was operated by the State as a home for veterans. The State constructed a new veterans' home and the legislature declared the property at issue herein to be surplus, the general property of the State and held for later disposition by the legislature. 1963 S.L. Ch. 228.
In 1969 the City and County brought an action to condemn a portion of the Old Soldiers' Home property for the construction of Curtis Road from the first bench in Boise to State Highway 44. That condemnation action was successful and the judgment was affirmed in County of Ada v. State, 93 Idaho 830, 475 P.2d 367 (1970). The validity of that condemnation is not at issue herein.
Thereafter the 1971 session of the Idaho legislature enacted Chapter 125 of the 1971 Session Laws which provides in pertinent part:
'Section 1. There is hereby created a state park to be known and designated as the Idaho Veterans Memorial Park, located in Ada County and particularly described as follows:
(Metes and bounds description omitted)
In May, 1971 the State of Idaho ex rel. the Idaho State Park Board brought the present action under the purported authority of Chapter 125, 1971 Idaho S.L. seeking to recondemn and thus reacquire the property which the City and County had previously acquired in the 1969 condemnation action. The court below entered summary judgment in favor of the City and the County on the basis that, as a matter of law, Ch. 125, 1971 Idaho Session Laws violated both art. 3, § 19, par. 7 and art. 9, § 7 of the Idaho Constitution. The State appeals from the summary judgment in favor of the City and County. The sole issue for determination herein is the constitutionality of said Chapter 125.
At the outset, we state the long-standing rules of statutory construction:
Leonardson v. Moon, 92 Idaho 796, 806, 451 P.2d 542, 552 (1969). See, Sutherland, 2 Statutory Construction § 4509, pp. 326-327 (1943).
Idaho Constitution, art. 3, § 19, par. 7, provides in pertinent part:
'The legislature shall not pass local or special laws in any of the following enumerated cases, that is to say:--
'Authorizing the laying out, opening, altering, maintaining, working on, or vacating roads, highways, streets, alleys, town plats, parks, cemeteries, or any public grounds not owned by the state.'
This constitutional provision was considered in Butler v. City of Lewiston, 11 Idaho 393, 398, 83 P. 234, 235 (1905), and the court stated:
(Emphasis supplied.)
It is clear under Butler that our Constitution prohibits special legislation only if such legislation comes within one of the thirty-two expressly prohibited categories. Put conversely, the legislature may pass any special legislation not specifically forbidden by the Constitution. Many of our sister states have similar but not identical constitutional provisions. See: Sutherland, 2 Statutory Construction, § 2101, pp. 2-5 (1943); Cloe and Marcus, Special and Local Legislation, 24 Ky.L.J. 351, 352 (1936).
It is apparent that art. 3, § 19, par. 7 of our Constitution is premised on the policy that the legislature should not be allowed to carry out special projects on lands '* * * not owned by the state.' The constitutional debate preceding the adoption of our Constitution demonstrates that policy:
1 Proceedings and Debates of the Constitutional Convention of Idaho, 1889, p. 539 (Hart ed. 1912).
Although the above quoted language is couched in specific terms of 'roads' it is clear that the reasoning therein is applicable also to 'parks.' The Constitution is designed to prevent legislation bestowing special favors on preferred groups or localities and such prohibition is no less applicable to parks than it is to roads. It is equally clear that the phrase 'not owned by the state' refers to and modifies all of the preceding nouns, i. e., roads, highways, streets, alleys, town plats, parks, cemeteries or public grounds. Any other construction of the constitutional language would be patently absurd and would defeat the constitutional intent as delineated by the proceedings and debates of the constitutional convention.
We therefore hold that art. 3, sec. 19, par. 7, does not prohibit the legislature from establishing state parks on lands owned by the state. We further conclude that Idaho Session Laws 1971, Ch. 125, while in fact special legislation, does not come within those categories of special legislation specifically prohibited by Idaho Constitution, art. 3, § 19, par. 7. See: Town of Greenwood Village v. District Court, 138 Colo. 283, 332 P.2d 210 (1958).
As a second basis for his decision, the trial court held that Ch. 125 violated...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jones v. State Bd. of Medicine
...provisions was 'to prevent legislation bestowing favors on preferred groups or localities. State ex rel. Idaho State Park Board v. City of Boise, 95 Idaho 380, 383, 509 P.2d 1301, 1304 (1973). It has been indicated that the distinction between general and special legislation is that a law i......
-
Kerner v. Johnson
...99 Idaho 127, 578 P.2d 243 (1978). Western Beverage, Inc. v. State, 96 Idaho 588, 532 P.2d 930 (1974); Idaho State Park Bd. v. City of Boise, 95 Idaho 380, 509 P.2d 1301 (1973); Tryon v. Baker, 94 Idaho 222, 485 P.2d 964 (1971). Therefore the appeal in Kerner v. Johnson, No. 12356, is SHEPA......
-
Eastin v. Broomfield
...favors on preferred groups or localities.' " 97 Idaho at 876, 555 P.2d at 416, quoting State Ex Rel. Idaho State Park Board v. City of Boise, 95 Idaho 380, 383, 509 P.2d 1301, 1304 (1973). The "special" laws proscribed by Art. IV must be contrasted with " general" laws which are permissible......
-
Robinson v. Bodily
...(1972).3 Id.4 Cenarussa v. Peterson, supra note 1, 95 Idaho at 396, 509 P.2d 1316.5 See, e. g., State ex rel. Idaho State Park Bd. v. City of Boise, 95 Idaho 380, 383-384, 509 P.2d 1301 (1973); Tryon v. Baker, 94 Idaho 222, 223, 485 P.2d 964 (1971); Boyer v. Shoshone-Bannock Indian Tribes, ......