Curly Haugland's comments on TIF lawsuit dismissal
 

Bismarck - Today, Curly Haugland, plaintiff in Erling "Curly" Haugland v. City of Bismarck, released a statement about Judge Donovan Foughty's dismissal of the case concerning the City of Bismarck's use of tax increment financing (TIF).  Haugland released the following statement:

In bringing this issue before the court, I asked the court to answer three basic Constitutional questions raised by the manner in which the City of Bismarck administers what they call a "TIF District".

1. Is it Constitutional to use funds raised by the levy of taxes for "Schools" to be  used for municipal improvements?
2. Is it Constitutional to use public funds for purely private purposes?
3. Is it Constitutional to allow a substantial portion of the property taxes levied for schools, county, park and the UND medical school, be set aside for use only in the TIF district, thereby shifting the burden of the taxes lost to the TIF district to other taxpayers in the affected jurisdictions?

Without explanation, Judge Donovan Foughty declined to address these issues.  

 

In arguments before the court, the city suggested that we should take our case to the State Legislature.

 

That we will do.  And if the legislature acts to cure the problems we have complained of, this case will become moot.  Hopefully, legislative action will preclude the need for further appeal.

 

As part of its motion for dismissal, the City requested that the Court not consider whether the City's proposed uses of TIF funds for quiet rail and for a 6^th Street parking ramp are legal.  The Court granted the City's request and indicated that any decision concerning the legality of quiet rail and/or the 6^th Street parking ramp will have to be decided in the future if the City takes further action to fund either project with TIF money.

Click HERE to read Mr. Haugland's complaint.   

Click HERE to read Mr. Haugland's truncated brief regarding urban renewal.