Wilson v. Iowa City
| Decision Date | 11 March 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 53300,53300 |
| Citation | 165 N.W.2d 813 |
| Parties | John B. WILSON et al., Appellees and Cross-Appellants, v. IOWA CITY, Iowa, William B. Hubbard, W. Burger, et al., Appellants and Cross-Appellees. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
William L. Mearden and Jay H. Honohan, Iowa City, for appellants.
Bartley, Bartley, Diehl, Thornton & Light, Iowa City, for appellees.
This is an action for declaratory judgment brought by residents of Iowa City, Iowa, challenging the validity of certain proceedings under chapter 403, Code of Iowa, commonly called the Urban Renewal Law.
It was brought and tried as an equitable action, and our consideration on this appeal is de novo. Rule 334, Rules of Civil Procedure; Frederick v. Shorman, 259 Iowa 1050, 1055, 147 N.W.2d 478, 482.
Chapter 403 was originally enacted in 1957. It declares there exist in the municipalities of this state certain areas which 'constitute a serious and growing menace, injurious to the public health, safety, morals and welfare.' Its announced purpose, as set forth in section 403.2 includes the prevention, elimination, and rehabilitation of these 'slum and blighted areas' in order that the state and its municipalities 'shall not continue to be endangered by areas which are focal centers of disease, promote juvenile delinquency and consume an excessive portion of state revenues because of the extra services required for police, fire, accident, hospitalization and other forms of public protection, services and facilities.'
Iowa City, a municipality with a council-manager form of government under chapter 363C, Code of Iowa, first availed itself of the urban renewal law in 1964. From 1964 to 1967, when this action was started, the council adopted numerous resolutions designed ultimately to put an urban renewal project into effect.
This controversy covers a period of more than three years. During that three-year period the makeup of the city council, composed of five members, was changed several times. From September 21, 1964, to January 1, 1966, the councilmen were Yocum, Maas, Burger, Hubbard and Nesmith. From January 1, 1966, to January 1, 1968, the list included Hubbard, Burger, Nesmith, Lind and Hickerson. From January 2, 1968, to the time of trial, Lind, Hickerson, Connell, Butherus and Brandt served on the council.
The council first took action under chapter 403 on September 21, 1964, when it passed a resolution of necessity finding that 'one or more slums or blighted areas exist in the city of Iowa City, Iowa, and the rehabilitation, conservation, redevelopment or a combination thereof of such area or areas is necessary in the interest of the public health, safety, morals or welfare of the residents of the city of Iowa City, Iowa.'
This resolution was obviously adopted to comply with the requirements of section 403.4, Code of Iowa. Its language is identical with the statute and its passage is a condition precedent to the exercise of urban renewal authority by a municipality.
On the same date a second resolution was passed directing the city manager's office to arrange for the preparation of an application to the proper agency of the federal government, the first step under Title I, Housing Act of 1949, (42 U.S.C.A. section 1450 et seq.) to secure financial assistance for an urban renewal program.
Neither of these resolutions did more than find the city had certain slum or blighted areas and determine it was advisable to attempt rehabilitation under the urban renewal law. They neither described nor located such areas.
The record sets out numerous activities on the part of the council and many resolutions dealing with surveys, plans, legal services, engineering services, and appraisals, but we refer only to those matters which are relied upon by the litigants in their presentation of this appeal. Issues not urged are deemed waived under our rules. Rule 344(a)(3) (4, Third), R.C.P.; Sawyer v. Sawyer, 261 Iowa 112, 152 N.W.2d 605, 610; Nelson v. Leaders, 258 Iowa 919, 923, 140 N.W.2d 921, 923, 924; B-W Acceptance Corp. v. Saluri, 258 Iowa 489, 499, 139 N.W.2d 399, 404; Allerton-Clio-Line-ville Community School District v. County Board of Education, 258 Iowa 846, 848, 140 N.W.2d 722, 723, and citations.
On August 15, 1967, the council by resolution set a public hearing for the City-University Urban Renewal Project R--14. The hearing date was September 12, 1967. Prior to the hearing plaintiffs secured a temporary injunction enjoining defendants Hubbard, Burger, Hickerson and Lind from 'participating in any manner in any action of the defendant, City of Iowa City, Iowa, or any board or commission thereof or urban renewal agency' concerning property then under consideration for urban renewal treatment.
No hearing was held. Later, after trial, a decree was entered finding certain resolutions adopted by the council on March 7, 1967, invalid and void under section 403.16, Code of Iowa; holding all other proceedings pertaining to urban renewal up to and including August 15, 1967, valid; and holding councilmen Lind, Hickerson, Hubbard, and Connell 'prohibited by section 403.16 from participating in a vote on the proposed project Iowa R--14 set for hearing by resolution enacted on August 15, 1967.'
Other findings and holdings of the trial court are referred to in detail later.
Both plaintiffs and defendants have appealed, urging specific propositions which they claim require reversal of the district court decree. To some extent these propositions overlap. In those instances we discuss the assertions of both sides in one division for brevity and clarity.
As is perhaps already apparent, the fundamental dispute here--and the point upon which the result must hinge--is whether certain members of the city council were prohibited from voting on urban renewal resolutions because of conflict of interest. This, in turn, depends upon the construction given to section 403.16, which provides, in part, as follows:
With this statute as background, we discuss the factual situation leading up to the resolutions of March 7, 1967, which the trial court held to be invalid. We eliminate those proceedings which are unimportant to this appeal.
As previously mentioned the city council adopted a resolution of necessity on September 21, 1964. On November 17, 1964, a resolution was passed asking for a federal grant of $171,969.00 to undertake and carry out an urban renewal project in Iowa City. The resolution specifically described the area to which these funds were applicable. Part of this area is included in the City-University Urban Renewal Project R--14.
This proposed project was the subject of one of the two resolutions of March 7, 1967, and was also the plan upon which the enjoined public hearing was no have been held.
On July 13, 1965, and April 5, 1966, resolutions were adopted asking additional funds from the federal government to make surveys and prepare plans on other specifically described areas. These remain part of the city's comprehensive program, but are still in the study stage.
On October 26, 1965, new property was added to the area upon which the city has announced urban renewal plans. This property is part of Iowa R--31, the proposed project covered by the second resolution of March 7, 1967.
We call attention to the fact that each of the four resolutions adopted prior to March 7, 1967, described property upon which an urban renewal project was contemplated. Substantial funds were requested to make studies and surveys and to employ legal, engineering, and other personnel for this purpose.
Each of the two resolutions of March 7, 1967, was entitled 'Resolution Authorizing the Filing of an Application for Loan and Grant.'
They were actually alternative resolutions. One encompassed part, but not all, of the property covered by the November 17, 1964, resolution. The other included the remainder of the property described in that resolution plus the area added by the resolution of October 25, 1965.
Originally it was contemplated all this should comprise one project. It was split, however, when there was a cutback on available financing. To come within the new funding limitations, the larger project was divided into two smaller ones. Only one, iowa R--14, had been set for public hearing when the temporary injunction issued.
This becomes important later in considering the validity of Councilman Lind's vote.
The trial court found the vote by which the resolutions of March 7, 1967, were adopted invalid for these reasons:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jahnke v. Incorporated City of Des Moines, 54586
...429 (1966); Hubbard v. State, 163 N.W.2d 904, 909 (Iowa 1969); Overbeck v. Dillaber, 165 N.W.2d 795, 797 (Iowa 1969); Wilson v. Iowa City, 165 N.W.2d 813, 822 (Iowa 1969); Dobrovolny v. Reinhardt, 173 N.W.2d 837, 840 (Iowa 1970); Cedar Memorial Park Cemetery Association v. Personnel Associa......
-
Iowa Farm Bureau Fed'n v. Envtl. Prot. Comm'n & Iowa Dep't of Natural Res.
...that a statutory conflict can serve to disqualify the vote of a member of a governmental council or commission. Wilson v. Iowa City, 165 N.W.2d 813, 823 (Iowa 1969). In Wilson , we confronted a statute that prohibited a public official from acquiring a personal interest in an urban renewal......
-
Franklin Mfg. Co. v. Iowa Civil Rights Commission
...v. Personnel Associates, Inc., Supra; Webster Realty Company v. City of Fort Dodge, 174 N.W.2d 413, 418 (Iowa 1970); Wilson v. Iowa City, 165 N.W.2d 813, 822 (Iowa 1969); Goergen v. State Tax Commission, 165 N.W.2d 782, 785, 786 (Iowa 1969). "(6) We give weight to the administrative interpr......
-
Goreham v. Des Moines Metropolitan Area Solid Waste Agency
...here there is nothing to indicate a personal pecuniary interest of those representatives is involved such as appears in Wilson v. Iowa City, Iowa, 165 N.W.2d 813, 820. Although the members of the board understandably will want to keep the rates their constituents must pay as low as possible......