The case was decided based on Arizona’s Constitution so these other states’ procedures are not relevant. As to the Court — The opinion was written by Judge Patrick Irvine, who in my opinion, is a very good judge who rules based on the law, not his sympathies.

In defense of CityNorth, let me say that the keeping Nordstrom’s presence in their shopping mall is rent-seeking only in the sense that popular anchor stores are necessary to attract other mall tenants; be assured that Nordstom does not pay its fair-share of mall rents.

Most states and some municipalities across America are bending over backward to attract viable businesses through any and all means possible, such as Tax Incentive Financing districts, reduced property taxes and yes, even taxpayer-backed loans.

The difference is that the most courts are allowing any perceived public benefit as reason enough to permit government grants and loans. The Goldwater Institute found a sympathetic court to back its “gift clause” argument.

If we could rewind the tape, I am sure that city attorneys and the mall could have found a more bulletproof basis to build the parking garage.