## Facts

- The Washington Legislature enacted a statute authorizing public financing for construction of a new, publicly owned major league baseball stadium in King County after concerns the Seattle Mariners might relocate.
- The statute created a public facilities district empowered to build and own the stadium and lease it to the Mariners for “reasonable rent” under conditions intended to protect the public investment.
- The statute authorized multiple tax mechanisms to fund construction and related costs.
- The Legislature found the project would provide public benefits such as economic development, job creation, and recreational and civic benefits.
- The statute included an emergency clause making it effective immediately and, if valid, exempt from referendum.
- A nonprofit organization and individual plaintiffs, along with separate plaintiffs in a companion suit, challenged the statute as primarily benefiting a private, for-profit franchise and as improperly avoiding referendum.
- The trial court dismissed both actions; the cases were consolidated on direct review.

## Issues

1. Whether use of tax revenues to finance a publicly owned baseball stadium leased to a private team violates the constitutional requirement that taxation serve a public purpose.
2. Whether the financing and leasing arrangement constitutes an unconstitutional gift, loan of public funds, or lending of public credit to a private enterprise.
3. Whether the statute is unconstitutional special legislation because it effectively applies only to a single project in a single county.
4. Whether the statute’s emergency clause is invalid, thereby improperly depriving the people of the referendum right.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of both lawsuits and upheld the statute in full.
- The court held the statute serves a public purpose and does not unlawfully direct tax revenues to a private project.
- The court held the statute does not create an unconstitutional gift or loan of public funds or credit because it reflects no donative intent and provides substantial public benefit and consideration.
- The court held the statute is general rather than special legislation because its classifications are reasonable and related to legitimate legislative objectives.
- The court held the emergency clause is valid; the statute took immediate effect and was exempt from referendum.

## Legal Principles

- Legislative determinations that an expenditure serves a public purpose receive substantial judicial deference; an incidental private benefit does not negate a public purpose where the primary objective is public.
- Challenges under constitutional prohibitions on gifts or loans of public funds/credit are assessed by examining (1) donative intent and (2) whether the public receives adequate consideration or substantial public benefit.
- A statute is not unconstitutional special legislation merely because only one entity presently fits within a reasonable, nonarbitrary classification that is related to the law’s purpose.
- Emergency clauses are upheld absent a clear showing that the legislative declaration of emergency is facially and demonstrably false; valid emergency measures are exempt from referendum.

## Conclusion

The court sustained Washington’s stadium financing statute, concluding that publicly funding and owning a stadium leased to a professional team can satisfy public-purpose limits, avoid gift/credit prohibitions when structured to provide public benefit and consideration, qualify as general legislation, and validly take immediate effect under a legislatively declared emergency exempt from referendum.


CLEAN v. State, 928 P.2d 1054 (Wash. 1996)