Thirty-one Indianapolis property owners who
paid as much as 30 times more than their neighbors for sewer service got
resolution from the U.S. Supreme Court in their lawsuit against the city. They
lost.
“It hurts,” said Christine Armour, who by virtue of the alphabet is the first and namesake plaintiff in Armour v. City of Indianapolis, No. 11-161. “It’s a total injustice. I just can’t see how they could make a judgment like that.”
The judgment was the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling in favor of Indianapolis, a ruling that upheld a divided Indiana Supreme Court.
“It hurts,” said Christine Armour, who by virtue of the alphabet is the first and namesake plaintiff in Armour v. City of Indianapolis, No. 11-161. “It’s a total injustice. I just can’t see how they could make a judgment like that.”
The judgment was the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling in favor of Indianapolis, a ruling that upheld a divided Indiana Supreme Court.
The plaintiffs each paid the full $9,278 to
have sewers installed in the Brisbane/Manning neighborhood in northwest
Indianapolis. The city used Indiana’s Barrett Law to finance the sewer hookups,
apportioning the cost equally among property owners, who could pay in full or
in installments.
The suit arose when Indianapolis stopped using Barrett Law and forgave future payments. Those who paid in full wanted refunds; the city refused. Some property owners whose debt was forgiven had paid little more than $300.
Ronald J. Waicukauski, an attorney with Price Waicukauski & Riley in Indianapolis, sued the city on the property owners’ behalf under the federal Equal Protection Clause. He litigated the case until Washington, D.C., attorney Mark Stancil argued before the U.S. Supreme Court.
“I continue to believe that what the city did here was incredibly unfair and was bad public policy for the city, and I also believe that what the Supreme Court has done in refusing to overturn this incredibly unfair decision reflects in a negative way on the opportunity the courts have and will have in the future to correct injustices like this,” Waicukauski said.
But attorneys for the city said the court decided correctly on equal protection and giving deference to governmental lawmaking powers.
…
The suit arose when Indianapolis stopped using Barrett Law and forgave future payments. Those who paid in full wanted refunds; the city refused. Some property owners whose debt was forgiven had paid little more than $300.
Ronald J. Waicukauski, an attorney with Price Waicukauski & Riley in Indianapolis, sued the city on the property owners’ behalf under the federal Equal Protection Clause. He litigated the case until Washington, D.C., attorney Mark Stancil argued before the U.S. Supreme Court.
“I continue to believe that what the city did here was incredibly unfair and was bad public policy for the city, and I also believe that what the Supreme Court has done in refusing to overturn this incredibly unfair decision reflects in a negative way on the opportunity the courts have and will have in the future to correct injustices like this,” Waicukauski said.
But attorneys for the city said the court decided correctly on equal protection and giving deference to governmental lawmaking powers.
…
See the full article here:
Here's an earlier post on this issue:
http://indianapropertytaxreporter.blogspot.com/2012/06/supreme-court-unholds-citys-decision-to.html
