01/04/1988 Park Board Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

cation for streets and. installation of subdivision utilities. r1 On the issue of compulsory dedication, or cash in lieu of dedi- cation, for other public purposes, however, the tide of judicial opinion has run in favor of subdividers until very recent times. "E 2 One of the most forceful statements contrary to this trend. is the con- cluding paragraph of Heyman & Gilhools "We have chosen to challenge the emerging rule that would prohibit exactions for a full range of municipal capital expend- itures• particularly for schools and. recreation. It seems im- portant to as to free so imprecise and troublesome an area as municipal finance, haunted. so often by necessity, from Inflexi- ble constitutional strictures. In an ideal world the problems of municipal finance would be met more surely and just as fair- ly by some system more thorough than subdivision exaction. In the meantime, municipalities must meet' the demands of the day as best they can. So long as our sense of fairness is not seriously affronted.-- and. exactions of the sort we . have dis- cussed. here fall well within that. limit--municipalities must * 10 be left their salvational' In Minnesota the constitutionality of this park dedication re- quirement has been challenged in Collis v. City of Bloomington, 19769 310 Minn. 5, 246 N,W. 2d 19. The court finds: "While in general subdivision regulations are a valid ex- ercise of the police power, made necessary by the problems subdivisions create--i.e. , greater needs for municipal ser- vices and facilities--, the possibility of arbitrariness and unfairness in their application is nonetheless substantial: A municipality could, use dedication regulations to exact land or fees from a subdivider far out of proportion to the needs C,