urbanMSP

CONCLUSION

In seeking injunctive relief under MERA, Smart Growth bore the burden of demonstrating that its requested relief was necessary or appropriate to protect the environment and would not cause unnecessary hardship to the city. We conclude that the district court erred by assigning the burden of proof to the city in determining whether to grant injunctive relief, clearly erred by finding that reversion to the 2030 Plan was necessary or appropriate to protect the environment, and abused its discretion in fashioning injunctive relief that imposes unnecessary hardship on the city. We therefore reverse the amended injunction order.

In reaching these conclusions, we acknowledge the protracted nature of this litigation, the important interests at stake, and that “[t]he relief available under MERA is broad in scope.” Smart Growth I, 954 N.W.2d at 590. Nothing in this opinion shall be construed to preclude further proceedings before the district court under Minnesota Statutes section 116B.07, either for different relief or for the same relief based on a more developed record. We merely hold that, on the record before it, the district court abused its discretion by granting the amended injunction order.

Reversed; motion denied.

It would seem to my (not-yet-legally-trained) eyes that this more or less ends it, right? By the time Smart Growth provides the "evidence" (that doesn't exist) that 2040 violates MERA, either the legislature will have exempted comp plans, or 2050 planning will have begun (and god help us all if Minneapolis makes the same mistake twice and doesn't study 2050.)

The Appeals Court does seem to leave open the door to reversion to 2030 if Smart Growth can prove it's necessary, but that seems basically impossible. Of course, Smart Growth could appeal, but if they do that, 2040 stands at least until the Supreme Court hears this. Probably at least a year, I'd think.

Hopefully, some 2040-compatible projects have been sitting on a shelf for a couple years and will be ready to go before the Planning Commission on short order, but the interest rate environment remains challenging, even if construction costs are falling.

(and god help us all if Minneapolis makes the same mistake twice and doesn't study 2050.)

Minneapolis didn't make a mistake by not doing an EIS for 2040. It would have been ridiculously expensive, wasteful, and probably still would have gotten bogged down in lawsuits from the same people.

And IANAL, but I'm not sure they were wrong in how they defended the lawsuits either. It seems like they deliberately didn't want to encourage this type of nonsense, reasonably expecting the judge to toss the case out on its ear, but they ended up with the wrong sympathetic judge.

It is pretty funny that you can file a lawsuit and the courts will spend six years on procedural back and forth with laypeople skimming the 500 word articles throughout thinking that they are addressing whether or not the thing is good or bad.

It is pretty funny that you can file a lawsuit and the courts will spend six years on procedural back and forth with laypeople skimming the 500 word articles throughout thinking that they are addressing whether or not the thing is good or bad.

Agree - a little civic literacy would be nice. Elected legislative bodies set policy, and courts can weigh the legality / constitutionality of that policy. And it should go without saying that the courts should be policy-neutral and defer to elected representatives as much as is feasible, sticking to their "lane" of procedural and constitutional issues.

Good policy can be procedurally illegal, and bad policy can be procedurally legal. I think most courts still hew to those boundaries, but it's unfortunate that there is some public perception is that courts are (or should be) policy-setting super-legislatures.

It is pretty funny that you can file a lawsuit and the courts will spend six years on procedural back and forth with laypeople skimming the 500 word articles throughout thinking that they are addressing whether or not the thing is good or bad.

Agree - a little civic literacy would be nice. Elected legislative bodies set policy, and courts can weigh the legality / constitutionality of that policy. And it should go without saying that the courts should be policy-neutral and defer to elected representatives as much as is feasible, sticking to their "lane" of procedural and constitutional issues.

Good policy can be procedurally illegal, and bad policy can be procedurally legal. I think most courts still hew to those boundaries, but it's unfortunate that there is some public perception is that courts are (or should be) policy-setting super-legislatures.

You can hardly blame people for thinking courts are supposed to make policy when they're handing down decisions like "the legislature intended for visionary zoning documents to be subject to environmental review" when that clearly wasn't the intent of the legislature.

It's also interesting to think about how as much as courts are not supposed to "make policy," their rulings essentially can effectuate policy-like decisions. Roe v. Wade is a great example: the court derived a right to (read: legalized) abortion and that has resulted in huge changes to how women make decisions about family planning, birth control, full-time employment, their education, etc. and that has in turn massively affected tons of wellbeing indicators. The court may not have strictly "made policy," but the effect of court decisions is often, essentially, policy.

The line between policymaking and interpretation is very blurry, especially after decades of waning legislative ambition, and I can't blame people for thinking judges are just legislators who wear funny robes.

Excellent points. One could argue that Roe wasn't judicial policy-making, but rather an articulation of constitutional policy / rights that were always implicitly present but not yet "discovered". When viewed in that way, I think this problem is a symptom of our 230+ year old constitution. There's a reason modern constitutions spell out things in much greater detail than ours, because vagueness in the foundational document is an invitation to "discovering" policy out of the gray areas. (It is extremely ironic that basically the entire modern powers of the judiciary were "discovered" in just this way in Marbury v Madison.)

Not sure where discoverable rights exist in the Constitution, but I am aware of a way to change it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_F ... nstitution

For the record, IANAL is not a great shorthand!

Is that pocket constitution in your pocket or are you happy to see me?

And in the end, none of it matters: the comp plan MERA exemption passed in the last chaotic minutes of the session.

2040 is fully, officially, unappealably back.

Huh. The language was changed at some point to specify cities of the first class, so only Minneapolis and St. Paul are immune to MERA lawsuits. The suburbs could all still be sued, should anyone wish to.

Huh. The language was changed at some point to specify cities of the first class, so only Minneapolis and St. Paul are immune to MERA lawsuits. The suburbs could all still be sued, should anyone wish to.

Don't forget Rochester and Duluth are also first-class.

Huh. The language was changed at some point to specify cities of the first class, so only Minneapolis and St. Paul are immune to MERA lawsuits. The suburbs could all still be sued, should anyone wish to.

Minnpost reported on what passed last night, and they said it applies to the suburbs as well.

Can't find the tweet, but I thought I saw that the retroactive bit applied only to first class cities, but the new law going forward applied to the seven metro counties?

Can't find the tweet, but I thought I saw that the retroactive bit applied only to first class cities, but the new law going forward applied to the seven metro counties?

I think that is how it is worded as well.

Forgive me if this has an obvious answer, but what happens to the comprehensive plan next? Does it have to go through the city council again?

For the record, IANAL is not a great shorthand!

Hahaha agreed.

Can't find the tweet, but I thought I saw that the retroactive bit applied only to first class cities, but the new law going forward applied to the seven metro counties?

Oh, that makes sense. I was confused by my reading, since "This will protect the suburbs from being sued too" was a key part of the pitch.

Forgive me if this has an obvious answer, but what happens to the comprehensive plan next? Does it have to go through the city council again?

If I understand correctly (which, y'know, I was incorrect a couple posts upthread) this permanently voids the lawsuit, so the plan as passed (and other related things, like the drive-thru ban) are now back in full effect, just in time for 2050 plan planning to begin.