Dislike of Wal-Mart prompts union worker's suit to block development

[Omaha Steve]

My last post tonight.


http://www.stclairrecord.com/news/newsview.asp?c=189967

Dislike of Wal-Mart prompts union worker's suit to block development

Dislike of Wal-Mart prompts union worker's suit to block development

Thursday, February 01, 2007

By Steve Korris

What's the difference between a union protest against Wal-Mart and a taxpayer lawsuit against the city of Collinsville?

There is no difference.

Shop 'n Save meat clerk Diane Tettaton of Collinsville, who sued in Madison County circuit court to block city financing of the Collinsville Crossing retail district, testified at trial in December that her union representative asked her to sue the city.

Tettaton testified that she probably would not have sued if the developer had included a union grocery store.

She also testified that she did not select her attorney, John Myers of Springfield. She paid no legal costs and did not intend to pay any, according to her testimony.

Attorneys for the city and the developer wrote in a summary of the trial that Tettaton's sole basis for suing was that she dislikes Wal-Mart.

Associate Judge Ralph Mendelsohn must decide whether to block city support for the developer, Collinsville Acquisitions.

He received post trial briefs from both sides Jan. 30.

Mendelsohn held trial without jury on four December days. It slipped by quietly on the miscellaneous remedies docket, which unelected associate judges handle.

Before and after Christmas, in an otherwise sleepy courthouse, Mendelsohn tackled a case involving a law so new that he must blaze a trail.

At Collinsville Crossing, on Route 157 at Interstate 55/70, the city did not follow the normal course of tax increment financing.

Instead Collinsville applied the Business District Act, which legislators amended in 2004 so cities could create business redevelopment districts with extra sales taxes.

The city planned to borrow about $19 million on behalf of Collinsville Acquisitions. Sales tax receipts would pay off the bonds.

At a proposed Wal-Mart, customers would pay the normal sales tax.

At a proposed home improvement store, they would pay an extra half cent.

In the rest of the district, customers would pay an extra cent.

Tettaton sued last March. She asked the court to declare the development agreement illegal and prohibit the city from expending public funds to carry it out.

She claimed creation of three tax rates violated a requirement in the Illinois Constitution for uniform taxation.

Tettaton argued that the city declared the area blighted without satisfying requirements in state law for declaring an area blighted.

Patrick Buffa signed on as second plaintiff, but he dropped out in April because he did not reside in Collinsville.

In May the developer challenged Tettaton's standing. Attorney Caroline Hermeling of Clayton, Mo., wrote that Illinois courts do not allow taxpayers to sue governments over actions that result in no loss to the government's general funds.

In June Mendelsohn denied the challenge to Tettaton's standing.

Trial began Dec. 18. Tettaton took the stand.

Mendelsohn said the parties agreed that the defense would start direct examination.