DocketNumber: No. CV 00 73346 S
Citation Numbers: 2000 Conn. Super. Ct. 11941, 28 Conn. L. Rptr. 237
Judges: SFERRAZZA, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 9/29/2000
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/17/2021
In the 1950's a private citizen donated approximately twenty acres of land located on the south side of Route 66 to the Columbia Volunteer Fire Department (Department). On December 9, 1999, a bonding resolution to finance the construction of a new firehouse on this land at a cost of $2,300,000 to the town was approved by referendum. The resolution also provided that the land would be conveyed by quitclaim deeds to the town. On May 25, 2000, the land was conveyed subject to a restriction that about 11.8 acres remain open space. Also, the town leased the property back to the Department for fifty years for $1, renewal be every fifty years for an additional 200 years.
The plaintiff's suit claims that the restriction and lease arrangement go beyond the terms of the bonding resolution and are, therefore, improper. Both plaintiffs are taxpayers and voters in Columbia. They seek to enjoin the town from selling bonds to finance the project, to require the town to accept only quitclaim deeds without the restriction noted above, to require the Department to convey other property to the town, and to shorten the term of the lease and renewal period.
The defendant contends that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring such an action. CT Page 11942
A lack of standing deprives the court of jurisdiction to decide the case, Monroe v. Horwitch,
The court finds that the plaintiffs' assertions in this regard are pure conjecture. The plaintiffs do not assail the $2, 300, 000 cost of the project. They speculate that someday the town might find an economically advantageous use for the property that will be foreclosed by the deed restrictions and lease arrangement. The court finds that the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that the presence of the open space condition and leasing agreement presents any realistic possibility that their taxes will rise over that which would exist without such open space condition and lease.
Standing is a rule designed to ensure that the party instigating a lawsuit has a real interest in a genuine controversy, Windham TaxpayersAssn. v. Board of Selectman, supra, 525. Its purpose is not to keep aggrieved parties out of court, Id.
The mere status as a qualified voter in a town fails to confer standing to litigate each and every municipal action, however. The municipal CT Page 11943 conduct that is the subject of the suit must conceivably pertain to an infringement of the right to vote, Id. The court finds that the plaintiffs' complaint passes this test.
The plaintiffs contend that officials of the town of Columbia have engaged in agreements which fail to reflect the outcome of the referendum of December 9, 1999, in which the plaintiffs were eligible to participate. They allege that the municipality's actions subsequent to that referendum fall outside the purview of the bonding resolution which was passed. To possess standing the plaintiffs need only demonstrate a realistic possibility of injury to their voting interests and not a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim.
In the present case, the purported misconduct of the town is that its officials are ignoring the outcome of the referendum which was the source of authority for municipal action. The redress sought is to rectify that misconduct and force compliance with the referendum. Whether the plaintiff can prove these allegations is immaterial.
The motion to dismiss is, therefore, denied.
Sferrazza, J.