Quote:
Originally Posted by MiEncanto
I don't understand this legally. Didn't Goldwater win on the Derby? What does that mean for all other deals going forward? Seems bizarre for the city to simply keep going as if nothing happened considering they didn't appeal the Derby loss. Any lawyers back here care to explain?
|
I don't know for sure why the City is continuing to give GPLETs, but we can read the tea leaves. First, the Derby case was not appealed--it was decided in the Superior Court and became a final judgment. The City's decision not to appeal may have been in part because they did not want to create binding precedent--they could have thought they were likely to lose on appeal, at which point there would be an appellate decision likely binding in future cases. By leaving the decision in the Superior Court, it does not create precedent, and is limited to the facts and parties of that specific case.
Second, Englehorn/Goldwater won the Derby case under the AZ Constitution "gift clause," which to put it simplistically requires the state to receive equal benefits for any public money, including through tax breaks/subsidies, that they give to private parties. The Court found that GPLETs in a vacuum are still constitutional under the gift clause. But under the specific facts of the Derby case, comparing the benefits given/received by the City, the Court determined that the City failed to show equal benefits. I don't know the specifics of the Skye GPLET, but it could be that the City felt that they were on surer footing with the Skye GPLET in being able to pass muster under the Gift Clause. This would make sense if for no other reason than that the Derby GPLET was a 25-year GPLET, whereas Skye is 8 years. It's also possible the City just hoped that Englehorn/Goldwater would lose interest in this issue and allow the status quo to continue.
