|
<br /> Larkin Hoffman 12/16/2009 10:43 PAGE 007/008 Fax Server
<br /> Mayor Bill Blesener
<br /> Shelly Boss, Council Member
<br /> John Keis, Council Member
<br /> Michael McGraw, Council Member
<br /> Rick Montour, Council Member
<br /> December 16, 2009
<br /> Page 6
<br /> relate to a legitimate governmental purpose. !n re Estate of Turner, 391 N.W.2d 767, 769 (Minn.
<br /> 1986). Unlike the federal courts, when Minnesota courts apply arational-basis review, they are
<br /> "unwilling to hypothesize a rational basis to justify a classification." Greene v. Comm'r, Minn.
<br /> Dept. of Human Servs., 755 N.W.2d 713, 729 (Minn. 2008) (quoting State v. Garcia, 683
<br /> N.W.2d 294, 299 (Minn. 2004)). Rather, the Minnesota Constitution requires "a reasonable
<br /> connection between the actual, and not just the theoretical, effect of the cha]lenged classification
<br /> and the [government's] goals." Garcia, 683 N.W.2d at 299 (quoting State v. Russell, 477
<br /> N.W.2d 886, 889 (Minn. 1991)). The City distinguished between Quebec Apartments and other
<br /> residential properties without a rational reason. As indicated above, the City cited an
<br /> unsupported belief that the Property might be redeveloped, but no testimony or other evidence
<br /> sixpporting the accuracy of this statement existed. Furthermore, even if the belief was true, it
<br /> does not provide a sufficient basis for deciding not to build a noise wall for tha Property because
<br /> the Property would still benefit from a noise wall even if it were redeveloped. For these reasons,
<br /> the City violated Quebec's equal protection rights.
<br /> Second, the City did not provide Quebec with meaningful, individualized notice and a right to be
<br /> heard before it decided to condition its approval on the omission of the wall to which Quebec
<br /> had a vested right, in violation of Quebec's due process rights. Aright becomes vested when it
<br /> has "arisen upon a ,transaction in the nature of a contract, authorized by statute and liabilities
<br /> under that right have been so far determined that nothing remains to be done by the party
<br /> asserting it." Ridgewood Dev. Co. v. State, 294 N.W.2d 288, 294 (Minn. 1980) (quoting Yeager
<br /> v, Delano Granite Works, 250 Minn. 303, 307, 94 N.W.2d 363, 366 (1957)). At the time the
<br /> FHWA and MnDOT approved the EA for the Project, the Project included a noise wall for
<br /> Quebec Apartments. Quebec had a vested right to the noise wa]] given the fmdings and
<br /> conclusions in the BA. A person who is likely to be deprived of his property interest by a
<br /> governmental entity is subject to procedural due-process protections. Fosselman v. Comm'r of
<br /> Human Serv., 612 N.W.2d 456, 461 (Mims. App. 2000). Due process protections include
<br /> reasonable notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard, at a minimum. Humenansky v.
<br /> Minn. Bd. of Med. Exam'rs, 525 N,W.2d 559, 565 (Minn. App. 1994), review denied (Minn. Feb.
<br /> 14, 1995). The City destroyed Quebec's vested right in the noise wall without first providing
<br /> Quebec with notice that it intended to condition its approval of the Project on the omission of the
<br /> noise wall. Thus, it violated Quebec's due process rights.
<br /> Third, the City's decision to omit the noise wall constituted an illegal uncompensated regulatory
<br /> taking of Quebec's property. The United States Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution
<br /> guarantee that private property cannot be taken for public use without the payment of just
<br /> compensation. U.S. Const, amend. V; Minn. Const. art. 1, § 13. When government regulation of
<br /> private property "goes too far," the government must pay compensation to the property owner.
<br /> Zeman v. City ofMinneapolis, 552 N.W.2d 548, 552 (Minn. 1996). To determine whether the
<br /> government has taken private property, a court must consider several factors, including "the
<br />
<br />
|