Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Scottsdale
Court of Appeals of Arizona
1DissentGrant, Presiding Judge
I respectfully dissent because I believe that the decision of the trial court should be affirmed.
I agree with the majority that deference should be afforded a municipality’s determination of the reasonable amount of a development fee. I disagree with the standard of review the majority applies to the trial court’s determination of a “beneficial use” to the new subdivisions. The trial court should, as was done in this case, independently review the proposed expenditure and determine if it will result in a “beneficial use” to the new developments as required by the enabling statute. To…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Mid Kansas Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Wichita v. Dynamic Development Corp.Arizona Supreme Court · 1991
- Fluckey v. City of PlymouthMichigan Supreme Court · 1960
- Banberry Development Corp. v. South Jordan CityUtah Supreme Court · 1981
- City of Glendale v. WhiteArizona Supreme Court · 1948
- Hollywood, Inc. v. Broward CountyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1983
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.