Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

00-2692 Alexander v. City of Madison

By: dmc-admin//August 6, 2001//

00-2692 Alexander v. City of Madison

By: dmc-admin//August 6, 2001//

Listen to this article

“Increasing the property tax base, providing employment opportunities, and attracting tourists are all legitimate public purposes, and the City may constitutionally appropriate funds to accomplish these goals. [Citation] Here, Alexander has the burden to demonstrate that it is ‘clear and palpable’ that no public purpose may be derived from these ordinances. … However, he offers no support for his assertion that the same people would have applied for and received the licenses even without the ordinances. Yet, it is his burden to provide such proof. A bald assertion such as is made here is insufficient to demonstrate that it is clear and palpable that no public purpose will be served. Therefore, we conclude that Alexander has not met his burden to provide proof on this facet of the public purpose doctrine.”

In addition, we conclude that the regulations controlling the application for a reserve Class B liquor license are inextricably tied to the application for the economic development grant and provide sufficient control and accountability to ensure that the public purposes outlined in the ordinances have a reasonable probability of being met.

Finally, even though the City can, through the economic development grants, essentially return the applicant’s entire Class B license fee, we disagree with plaintiff’s contention that the ordinance therefore constitutes “sham legislation” contrary to the will of the legislature that cities collect a $10,000 license fee.

“The statute mandating the minimum fee at issue here shows that this is an area where the legislature required municipal action, not exclusive state action. The City has complied with the legislative requirement that it collect a fee of at least $10,000 to issue a reserve Class B liquor license by passing Madison Gen. Ord. sec. 38.09(5)(d). However, Wis. Stat. sec. 125.51(3)(e)2. does not require the City to keep the money, nor does it place any conditions on how the City may choose to spend it. Therefore, we conclude that the ordinances do not conflict with the statute.”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

Dist IV, Dane County, Flanagan, J., Roggensack, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: Lester A. Pines, Madison; Tamara Packard, Madison

For Respondent: Eunice E. Gibson, Madison; Robert E. Olson Jr., Madison

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests