| OCR Text |
Show 118 were dstricts clause rpper rather than likewise placed beyond the scope of the because the schools were deemed to be state, local, responsibilities. In Rutherford v. City of Great taxpayers to sought enjoin the operation of the Great Falls Housing This Authority had been created Authority. by the city council pursuant to a legislative act designed to take advantage of the Federal Housing Act; its governing board of five commissioners was appointed It was to by the mayor. investigate living conditions in the city and execute plans for removing inadequate housing Falls,9 by building "decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings." These dwellings were restricted to low income families. The Authority was financed by revenue bonds which did not constitute liens on the property of the city or the Authority, and also by bonds which pledged the credit of the Authority and provided that its property could be mortgaged. The The Authority possessed Court rested which upheld no taxing power. its opinion principally on a Pennsyl similar statute, Dornan v. Phila This case had held that the delphia Housing ripper clause was inapplicable because the Authority exer cised no taxing power and was subjeot to the ultimate control of the local government in decisions affecting Philadelphia. However, the Montana Court addd an argument of its own It rejected which was inconsistent with the Dornan holding. the contention that the ripper clause was violated by the Authority's power to determine who is "low-income" by stating that the legislature had provided standards to determine which The Authority was families were in the low income bracket. vania case a Authority.lO an administrative Implicit agency deciding the facts. in this holding is the idea that the Authority was a creature of the state, dealing with a state interest, whereas the Dornan case held that local control over the discretionary to its validity. powers vested in the Authority was vital merely In Sixteenth 1945 Judiial 9107 10331 this case reI. Wiley v. District Court of DistriCt,TT it was held that the state in state Mont. Fa. 512, 86 209, supra, p. 11118 Mont. ex P. 200 Atl. 2d 656 (1939). 834 (1938). 65. 50, 164 P. 2d 358. See discussion of |
