|
|
| |
| Wed, Dec. 3, 2008 |  |
 |
|
||
| |
Bigelow loses $400,000 state appropriation, Supreme Court rules Friday, Dec 15, 2006 By Doug Thompson Arkansas News Bureau FAYETTEVILLE - The Perry County town of Bigelow is not entitled to a $400,000 state General Improvement Fund appropriation for sewer, streets and other infrastructure that it received in the last session of the Legislature, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday. The ruling overturns an earlier Pulaski county Circuit Court ruling that deemed the appropriation constitutional. Act 1898 of 2005 was sponsored by Sen. Bob Johnson, D-Bigelow, and granted the appropriation for street improvements as part of the money earmarked for legislators to spend within their districts for local projects. Former state Rep. Mike Wilson, D-Jacksonville, filed suit against several such projects on July 17, 2005. Use of state money for local projects has been a subject of controversy in the Legislature. Dispute over the amount of money appropriated for such projects played a role in the election of the Senate president pro tempore, for instance. The person answering the telephone at Johnson's business said he was not in the office. Nobody answered calls to Johnson's home, apartment and cell phone. The court dismissed most of Wilson's case on procedural grounds, but left the route open for Wilson to refile it. Other legislative appropriations challenged in the suit were to Cleburne County, the Jacksonville Museum of Military History, the city of Jacksonville and the Reed's Bridge Preservation Society. A similar challenge was filed previously against state money going to Alltel arena in Little Rock, and that case was cited by attorneys for Bigelow. "We noted in that case that the purpose of (the appropriation) was to provide funds for the construction of a multipurpose civic center that would increase tourism, recreation and economic development throughout the state." In Bigelow's case, the "the relevant inquiry is whether there exists a rational and legitimate reason for applying this act to only one community in this state." Attorneys for Bigelow had argued that the money would improve safety and increase tourism. "We are convinced that the reasons put forth to justify the $400,000 appropriation to the city of Bigelow for 'infrastructure, sewer and streets' could be advanced by multiple cities, towns and communities throughout the state, as Wilson maintains," the court ruled. "We are further convinced that no reason rationally related to a legitimate state purpose has been provided [to] this court for singling out Bigelow for special treatment. "Any community located in some proximity to a park or tourist attraction could claim comparable needs. If Act 1898 is allowed to stand, the result would be that [state constitutional] Amendment 14's prohibition against special and local legislation would be swallowed by exceptions premised on 'safety and tourism.'" |
