Sometimes, a good idea is enough – and other times, you need a good idea and a lawyer. On topics as diverse as federal health care, protecting freedom of speech and protecting taxpayers and business owners, the Goldwater Institute ensures that government at all levels adheres to the constitution by standing up for taxpayers’ rights in court.
Miller v. Arizona Corporation Commission (setting energy policy case)Posted on June 27, 2008 | Type: Case
The Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) is established under the Arizona Constitution with limited power to regulate utility rates, but over the years it has expanded its powers beyond its constitutional jurisdiction. The ACC recently adopted sweeping new rules requiring utilities to derive a specified share of their power from alternative sources. The rules have resulted in rate surcharges to residential and business customers that will total millions of dollars.
Goodman v. City of Tucson (Prop 207 case)Posted on March 11, 2008 | Type: Case
The Goldwater Institute represented Goodman in Pima County Superior Court. We asked for a declaration that the demolition amendments violate Goodman's due process rights, an injunction prohibiting the enforcement of the demolition amendments, and compensation for the diminution of Goodman's property values. A judge ruled in favor of Goodman. The next step in the case is to determine how much the City of Tucson must pay Goodman in damages. The Goldwater Institute is not part of this portion of the case and private attorneys in Tucson are now handling the damages issue.
Preston v. Hallman (Defending small business owners)Posted on November 05, 2007 | Type: Case
After winning the lawsuit but not being awarded damages, the Goldwater Institute appealed to recover damages on behalf of the Prestons. The City of Tempe also appealed the judge's decision. On June 17, 2010, the Prestons and the City of Tempe both agreed to drop their appeals.
Home Builders v. Mesa (cultural impact fee case)Posted on September 05, 2007 | Type: Case
Under Arizona law and the federal Constitution, building fees are supposed to be limited to the costs for “necessary” services—such as roads and sewers—that new residential developments impose upon a community. But many Arizona cities have begun looking at impact fees as new revenue sources, using them to fund unrelated facilities. Across the Valley, impact fees are soaring even as homeowners struggle to pay their mortgages and one of Arizona’s most important industries is on the ropes.
Turken v. Gordon (CityNorth subsidy case)Posted on August 08, 2007 | Type: Case
The case made it to the Arizona Supreme Court, which ruled that the law was unclear and clarified the law. Though the CityNorth subsidy deal can stand, the Court unanimously ruled that, going forward, government subsidies to encourage development violate the Gift Clause of the Arizona Constitution unless the developer offers tangible benefits of equal value in return. The Court did not rule on two legal issues related to the CityNorth case--the equal privileges and immunities, and special law provisions.