The legislature finds that there is a need for new development in areas of a city that are already built up in order to provide employment opportunities, to improve the tax base, and to improve the general economy of the state. Therefore, cities are authorized to develop a program for improving a district of the city to provide impetus for commercial development; to increase employment; to protect pedestrians from vehicle traffic and inclement weather; to provide the necessary linkage between peripheral parking facilities and places of employment and shopping; to provide off-street parking to serve the shoppers and employees of the district; to provide open space relief within the district; and to provide other facilities as are outlined in the development program adopted by the governing body. The legislature declares that the actions required to assist the implementation of these development programs are a public purpose and that the execution and financing of these programs are a public purpose.
Notes of Decisions
Eagan Econ. Dev. Auth. v. U-Haul Co. of Minnesota, 787 N.W.2d 523 (Minn. 2010).
· cites it 3× “047 (2008), and some city powers delineated in Minn. Stat. §§ 469.124 -.134 (2008). 3 Among the granted powers is the power to acquire property by condemnation.”
614 Co. v. Minneapolis Cmty. Dev. Agency, 547 N.W.2d 400 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 469.124 (1994) authorizes cities to activate redevelopment programs for improving the economy.”
Minneapolis Cmty. Dev. Agency v. Opus Nw., LLC, 582 N.W.2d 596 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 4× “” Minn.Stat. § 469.124 (1996). In this case, the city presented testimony that the proposed project will have the following benefits: a mid-priced retail store, increased parking, increased employment, increased tax base, extension of the skyway system, *600 unification of the…”
Lino Lakes Econ. Dev. Auth. v. Reiling, 610 N.W.2d 355 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 4× “The legislature has set forth the public purpose for takings for economic development projects in Minn.Stat. § 469.124 (1998); see also Minn.”
Matter of MCDA, 582 N.W.2d 596 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 4× “" Minn.Stat. § 469.124 (1996). In this case, the city presented testimony that the proposed project will have the following benefits: a mid-priced retail store, increased parking, increased employment, increased tax base, extension of the skyway system, *600 unification of the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.