Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
McKee Appeal Brief2

McKee Appeal Brief2

Ratings: (0)|Views: 21 |Likes:
Published by nphillips0304

More info:

Published by: nphillips0304 on Feb 01, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/01/2012

pdf

text

original

 
fl
,
.
.
.
~
;
t
l
n
I
If
II
"If
1
r
~-T
I'
'j
I
]r
IJ
'1[
!
I
U
,
.
I~
!
I
_
r:
i!
I
II
I!
I:
~_J
!
I
,I
I!
~
I
i'.
INTHEMISSOURICO·tJRTOF
AP'PEALS
EASTERNDISTRICT
BONZELLASMITH,
etal
))
)
)AppealNo.ED95733
)
)
))
Respondents
vs.
TIFCOMMISSIONERS,
etal.;
Appellants.
Appeal
fromtheCircuitCourt
ofSt.
LouisCity,Missouri
CaseNo.{)922~CC9379
Hon.RobertH.Dierker,Jr.Division18
REPLYBRIEFANDRESPONSEBRIEFONCROSSAPPEALOFAPPELLANTNORTHSIDEREGENERATION~LLC(INTERVENORSNELSONANDMCINTOSH)
Paul
J,
Puricelli,#32801
Robb
E.
Hellwig,#60570Stone,Leyton
&
Gershman,
AProfessionalCorporation7733ForsythBlvd.,
Suite
500
81.
Louis,
Missouri63105
(314)721-7011
(314)721-8660
-
AttorneysforAppellantNorthsideRegeneration,LLC
 
TABLEOFCONTENTS
TABLEOFAUTHORITIES,,.,',,,,,4
REPLYBRIEF
MOTIONTOSTRlKEFORFAILURETO
C01vIPLYWITHRULE84,046JURISDICTIONAL
STA'fE1v1ENT..,..,.,,.,,".,,.,..9
STATEMENTOFFACTS,',.,,"12ARGUMENT
PointI..;.
to,".."
t..
1';.."~~
4-
4.I.
t
t.."""t"t
r
23
I.THETRIAL-COURTERREDINRULINGTHATTHEREDEVELOPMENTORDINANCESLACKEDAREDEVELOPMENT
:
~
,
PROJECTANDTHUSDIDNOTSATISFYTHETIFACTBECAUSERESPONDENTSWAIVEDANDFAILEDTOPRESERVEANYSUCHCHALLENGEINTHAT
RESPONDENTS
FAILEDTORAISEANY
LEGAL
ORFACTUALCHALLENGEBASEDUPONTHELACKORSUFFICIENCYOFAREDEVELOPMENTPROJECTINTHEIRPLEADINGSORATTRIAL.
Point11,
+..
t.."t..;.
I
'1""'''''''''
I
t
I".,.,"~I"I~
t".
-.I.~
t~
",27
II.THETRIALCOURTERREDINRULINGTHATTHEREDEVELOPMENTORDINANCESLACKEDAREDEVELOPMENTPROJECTANDTHEREFOREDIDNOTSATISFYTHETIFACTBECAUSETHETRIALCOURT'SNEWDEFINITIONOFA
REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT
AS~'A
SPECIFIC
PLANOR
DESIGN"
IS
1
 
CONTRARYTOTHEBROADDEFINlTIONOF
REDEVELOPM:ENT
PROJECTUNDER,ANDTHEINTENTOFSECTION99.805(14)OFTHETIFACTINTHATTHETIFACTREQUIRESONLY"ANYDEVELOPMENTPROJECT"ANDTHEREDEVELOPMENTORDINANCESINCLUDED
A
REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECTWITHIN
THEMEANINGOFTHETIFACT.
Point
ill
I
a
III
4-~..
t
r~..~
4••
f..-
t..-.
iIiI;.
'II
II•II
-
II
+'"
I,.
45
ID.THETIDAL
COURTERREDINRULINGTHATTHEREDEVELOPMENTORDINANCESDIDNOTSATISFYTHETIFACTBECAUSETHEORDINANCESLACKEDACOST-BENEFITANALYSISREFERABLETOASPECIFICPROJECTBECAUSETHETIFACTDOESNOTREQUIREACOSTBENEFITANALYSISINCQNNECTIONWITH.INDIVIDUALREDEVELOPMENTPROJECTS;RATHER,RSMo§99.810.1(5)REQUIRESACOST-BENEFITANALYSISOFTHEREDEVELOPMENTPLANASAWHOLEANDTHEREDEVELOPlVIENTORDINANCESSATISFIED
THE
TIFACTINTHATTHEYINCLUDEDACOSTBENEFITANALYSISOFTHEPLANASAWHOLE.
2

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->