The court ruled unanimously this week to uphold a lower court ruling rejecting a challenge to the plan by resident Kenneth Hart, who contested the legality of the Rexburg urban renewal agency using Madison County property tax revenue to pay for building Riverside Park.

Urban renewal districts are formed to help spur development in deteriorated areas and are run by board members appointed by elected officials. The districts are intended to be developed for the public good. They typically operate on money generated through increases in property values — and thus the property taxes collected — after a district is formed.

Hart contended the urban renewal agency was an "alter ego" of the city. He said cities have so much control over urban renewal agencies that, when the agencies issue bonds to raise money, it is actually the city raising money, which requires two-thirds voter approval under Idaho law.

But justices ruled otherwise, writing that urban renewal agencies "are not 'alter egos' of cities under the law, and thus the agency's issuance of revenue allocation bonds does not violate" the Idaho Constitution.

Nine other urban renewal agencies filed amicus briefs siding with the Rexburg urban renewal agency.

Hart acted as his own attorney in 7th District Court, but John Runft represented Hart in the Supreme Court appeal.

The court ruled unanimously this week to uphold a lower court ruling rejecting a challenge to the plan by resident Kenneth Hart, who contested the legality of the Rexburg urban renewal agency using Madison County property tax revenue to pay for building Riverside Park.

Urban renewal districts are formed to help spur development in deteriorated areas and are run by board members appointed by elected officials. The districts are intended to be developed for the public good. They typically operate on money generated through increases in property values — and thus the property taxes collected — after a district is formed.

Hart contended the urban renewal agency was an "alter ego" of the city. He said cities have so much control over urban renewal agencies that, when the agencies issue bonds to raise money, it is actually the city raising money, which requires two-thirds voter approval under Idaho law.

But justices ruled otherwise, writing that urban renewal agencies "are not 'alter egos' of cities under the law, and thus the agency's issuance of revenue allocation bonds does not violate" the Idaho Constitution.

Nine other urban renewal agencies filed amicus briefs siding with the Rexburg urban renewal agency.

Hart acted as his own attorney in 7th District Court, but John Runft represented Hart in the Supreme Court appeal.