armour
et
al
city
indianapolis
indiana
et
argued
february
decided
june
decades
indianapolis
city
funded
sewer
projects
using
indiana
barrett
law
permitted
cities
apportion
public
improvement
project
costs
equally
among
abutting
lots
system
city
create
initial
assessment
dividing
total
estimated
cost
number
lots
making
necessary
adjustments
upon
project
completion
city
issue
final
assessment
lot
owners
elect
pay
assessment
lump
sum
time
installments
city
completed
sanitary
sewers
project
sent
affected
homeowners
formal
notice
payment
obligations
affected
homeowners
elected
pay
lump
sum
following
year
city
abandoned
barrett
law
financing
adopted
septic
tank
elimination
program
step
financed
projects
part
bonds
thereby
lowering
individual
owner
costs
implementing
step
city
board
public
works
enacted
resolution
forgiving
assessment
amounts
still
owed
pursuant
barrett
law
financing
homeowners
paid
project
lump
sum
received
refund
homeowners
elected
pay
installments
obligation
make
payments
homeowners
paid
lump
sum
asked
city
refund
city
denied
request
homeowners
brought
suit
indiana
state
claiming
relevant
part
city
refusal
violated
federal
equal
protection
clause
trial
granted
summary
judgment
homeowners
state
appeals
affirmed
indiana
reversed
holding
city
distinction
already
paid
rationally
related
legitimate
interests
reducing
administrative
costs
providing
financial
hardship
relief
homeowners
transitioning
barrett
law
system
step
preserving
limited
resources
held
city
rational
basis
distinction
thus
violate
equal
protection
clause
pp
city
classification
involve
fundamental
right
suspect
classification
see
heller
doe
subject
matter
local
economic
social
commercial
see
carolene
products
tax
classification
see
regan
taxation
representation
one
claims
city
discriminated
commerce
new
residents
cf
hooper
bernalillo
county
assessor
hence
city
distinction
violate
equal
protection
clause
long
reasonably
conceivable
state
facts
provide
rational
basis
classification
fcc
beach
communications
one
attacking
classification
negative
every
conceivable
basis
might
support
heller
supra
pp
administrative
concerns
ordinarily
justify
distinction
see
carmichael
southern
coal
coke
city
decision
stop
collecting
outstanding
barrett
law
debts
finds
rational
support
city
administrative
concerns
city
switched
step
system
decision
continue
barrett
law
debt
collection
proved
complex
expensive
meant
maintaining
administrative
system
years
come
collect
debts
arising
different
construction
projects
built
course
decade
involving
monthly
payments
low
per
household
possible
need
maintain
credibility
tracking
defaulting
debtors
bringing
legal
action
rationality
city
distinction
draws
support
nature
choices
confronted
added
refunds
forgiveness
meant
adding
administrative
costs
namely
cost
processing
refunds
limiting
refunds
homeowners
led
complaints
unfairness
expanding
refunds
apparently
thousands
barrett
law
project
homeowners
involved
even
greater
administrative
burden
finally
rationality
distinction
draws
support
fact
line
city
drew
distinguishing
past
payments
future
obligations
well
known
law
see
pp
petitioners
contrary
arguments
unpersuasive
whether
financial
hardship
factor
supporting
rationality
need
considered
since
city
administrative
concerns
sufficient
show
rational
basis
distinction
petitioners
propose
forgiveness
systems
argue
superior
city
system
constitution
requires
line
actually
drawn
city
rational
petitioners
argue
administrative
considerations
alone
justify
tax
distinction
lest
city
justify
unfair
system
insubstantial
administrative
considerations
rational
city
draw
line
avoided
administrative
burden
collecting
paying
small
sums
years
come
petitioners
shown
administrative
concerns
insubstantial
justify
classification
finally
petitioners
argue
precedent
makes
difficult
city
show
rational
basis
cases
refer
involve
discrimination
based
residence
length
residence
one
exception
allegheny
pittsburgh
coal
commission
webster
distinguishable
pp
affirmed
breyer
delivered
opinion
kennedy
thomas
ginsburg
sotomayor
kagan
joined
roberts
filed
dissenting
opinion
scalia
alito
joined
opinion
notice
opinion
subject
formal
revision
publication
preliminary
print
reports
readers
requested
notify
reporter
decisions
washington
typographical
formal
errors
order
corrections
may
made
preliminary
print
goes
press
christine
armour
et
petitioners
city
indianapolis
indiana
et
al
writ
certiorari
indiana
june
justice
breyer
delivered
opinion
many
years
indiana
statute
barrett
law
authorized
indiana
cities
impose
upon
benefited
lot
owners
cost
sewer
improvement
projects
law
also
permitted
lot
owners
pay
either
immediately
form
lump
sum
time
installments
city
indianapolis
city
adopted
new
assessment
payment
method
step
plan
forgave
barrett
law
installments
lot
owners
yet
paid
group
lot
owners
already
paid
entire
barrett
law
assessment
lump
sum
believe
city
provided
equivalent
refunds
must
decide
whether
city
refusal
unconstitutionally
discriminates
violation
equal
protection
clause
amdt
hold
city
rational
basis
distinguishing
lot
owners
already
paid
share
project
costs
conclude
equal
protection
violation
beginning
indiana
barrett
law
permitted
cities
pay
public
improvements
sewage
projects
apportion
ing
costs
project
equally
among
abutting
lands
lots
ind
code
see
town
council
new
harmony
parker
ind
project
beneficiaries
pay
costs
city
built
barrett
law
project
city
public
works
board
create
initial
assessment
dividing
estimated
total
cost
sewage
works
total
number
lots
might
adjust
individual
assessment
downward
lot
benefit
less
others
upon
completion
project
board
issue
final
assessment
law
permitted
lot
owners
pay
assessment
either
single
lump
sum
time
installment
payments
interest
city
collect
installment
payments
manner
taxes
law
authorized
installment
plans
fully
paid
assessment
constitute
lien
property
permitting
city
initiate
foreclosure
proceedings
case
default
several
decades
indianapolis
used
barrett
law
system
fund
sewer
projects
see
conley
brummit
ind
app
banc
city
adopted
new
system
called
septic
tank
elimination
program
step
financed
projects
part
bonds
thereby
lowering
individual
lot
owners
costs
time
city
constructed
barrett
law
projects
app
pet
cert
told
lot
owners
still
owed
money
respect
projects
see
reply
brief
petitioners
citing
city
response
plaintiff
brief
damages
record
cox
indianapolis
sd
doc
exh
respect
installment
payments
yet
fallen
due
respect
owed
money
default
reply
brief
petitioners
case
concerns
one
barrett
law
projects
namely
sanitary
sewers
project
project
began
connected
homes
city
sewage
system
construction
completed
indianapolis
board
public
works
held
assessment
hearing
june
july
board
sent
affected
homeowners
formal
notice
payment
obligations
notice
made
clear
homeowner
pay
entire
assessment
per
property
lump
sum
installments
include
interest
annual
rate
installment
plan
payments
amount
per
month
years
per
month
years
per
month
years
event
homeowners
chose
pay
front
chose
plan
chose
plan
chose
plan
first
year
homeowner
paid
amount
due
upfront
plan
plan
plan
app
pet
cert
next
year
however
city
decided
abandon
barrett
law
method
financing
thought
barrett
law
payments
become
burdensome
many
homeowners
pay
discouraging
changes
less
healthy
septic
tanks
healthier
sewer
systems
see
example
homes
helped
project
cost
valued
app
city
new
step
method
financing
charge
connecting
lot
owner
flat
fee
make
difference
floating
bonds
eventually
paid
lot
owners
citywide
see
app
pet
cert
october
city
enacted
ordinance
implementing
decision
december
city
board
public
works
enacted
resolution
resolution
part
transition
forgive
assessment
amounts
established
pursuant
barrett
law
funding
municipal
sewer
programs
due
owing
date
november
forward
app
emphasis
added
preamble
resolution
said
barrett
law
may
present
financial
hardships
many
middle
lower
income
participants
need
sanitary
sewer
service
lieu
failing
septic
systems
pointed
city
transitioning
new
step
method
financing
said
step
method
based
upon
financial
model
considered
current
assessments
made
participants
active
barrett
law
projects
well
future
projects
upshot
still
owed
barrett
law
assessments
make
payments
already
paid
assessments
receive
refunds
meant
homeowners
paid
full
manning
project
assessment
lump
sum
preceding
year
receive
refund
homeowners
elected
pay
assessment
installments
paid
total
obligation
make
payments
february
homeowners
paid
full
project
assessment
asked
city
partial
refund
amount
equal
smallest
forgiven
installment
debt
apparently
city
denied
request
part
efunding
payments
made
project
area
portion
payments
establish
precedent
unfair
inequitable
treatment
property
owners
also
paid
barrett
law
assessments
november
cutoff
date
might
seem
arbitrary
essential
city
establish
date
move
forward
new
funding
approach
project
homeowners
brought
lawsuit
indiana
state
seeking
refund
claimed
relevant
part
city
refusal
provide
refunds
time
city
forgave
outstanding
project
debts
homeowners
violated
federal
constitution
equal
protection
clause
amdt
see
also
rev
stat
trial
granted
summary
judgment
favor
state
appeals
affirmed
judgment
indiana
reversed
view
city
distinction
already
paid
barrett
law
assessments
rationally
related
legitimate
interests
reducing
administrative
costs
providing
relief
property
owners
experiencing
financial
hardship
establishing
clear
transition
barrett
law
step
preserving
limited
resources
app
pet
cert
granted
certiorari
consider
equal
protection
question
affirm
indiana
ii
long
city
distinction
rational
basis
distinction
violate
equal
protection
clause
long
held
classification
neither
involving
fundamental
rights
proceeding
along
suspect
lines
run
afoul
equal
protection
clause
rational
relationship
disparity
treatment
legitimate
governmental
purpose
heller
doe
cf
gulf
ellis
made
clear
analogous
contexts
ordinary
commercial
transactions
issue
rational
basis
review
requires
deference
reasonable
underlying
legislative
judgments
carolene
products
due
process
see
also
new
orleans
dukes
per
curiam
equal
protection
repeatedly
pointed
egislatures
especially
broad
latitude
creating
classifications
distinctions
tax
statutes
regan
taxation
representation
see
also
fitzgerald
racing
assn
central
iowa
nordlinger
hahn
lehnhausen
lake
shore
auto
parts
madden
kentucky
citizens
telephone
grand
rapids
fuller
indianapolis
classification
involves
neither
fundamental
right
suspect
classification
subject
matter
local
economic
social
commercial
tax
classification
one
claims
indianapolis
discriminated
commerce
new
residents
cf
hooper
bernalillo
county
assessor
williams
vermont
metropolitan
life
ins
ward
zobel
williams
hence
case
falls
directly
within
scope
precedents
holding
law
constitutionally
valid
plausible
policy
reason
classification
legislative
facts
classification
apparently
based
rationally
may
considered
true
governmental
decisionmaker
relationship
classification
goal
attenuated
render
distinction
arbitrary
irrational
nordlinger
supra
citations
omitted
falls
within
scope
precedents
holding
plausible
reason
reasonably
conceivable
state
facts
provide
rational
basis
classification
fcc
beach
communications
see
also
lindsley
natural
carbonic
gas
moreover
analogous
precedent
warns
us
pronounc
classification
unconstitutional
unless
light
facts
made
known
generally
assumed
character
preclude
assumption
rests
upon
rational
basis
within
knowledge
experience
legislators
carolene
products
supra
due
process
claim
classification
presumed
constitutional
burden
one
attacking
legislative
arrangement
negative
every
conceivable
basis
might
support
heller
supra
quoting
lehnhausen
supra
view
indianapolis
classification
rational
basis
ordinarily
administrative
considerations
justify
distinction
see
carmichael
southern
coal
coke
tax
exemption
businesses
fewer
eight
employees
rational
light
dministrative
convenience
expense
involved
see
also
lehnhausen
supra
comparing
administrative
cost
taxing
corporations
versus
individuals
madden
supra
comparing
administrative
cost
taxing
deposits
local
banks
versus
elsewhere
city
decision
stop
collecting
outstanding
barrett
law
debts
finds
rational
support
related
administrative
concerns
city
decided
switch
step
system
change
continue
barrett
law
collection
proved
complex
expensive
meant
maintaining
administrative
system
years
come
collect
debts
arising
different
construction
projects
built
course
decade
involving
monthly
payments
low
per
household
possible
need
maintain
credibility
tracking
defaulting
debtors
bringing
legal
action
city
example
maintain
barrett
law
operation
within
city
controller
office
keep
files
old
small
debts
city
official
says
possibly
spend
hundreds
thousands
dollars
keeping
computerized
systems
current
see
brief
international
management
association
et
al
amici
curiae
citing
affidavit
charles
white
record
cox
doc
unlike
collection
system
prior
abandonment
city
added
new
barrett
law
debtors
fact
means
spread
fixed
administrative
costs
collection
number
debtors
thereby
continuously
increasing
cost
collection
consistent
facts
director
city
department
public
works
later
explained
city
decided
forgive
outstanding
debt
part
administrative
costs
service
process
remaining
balances
barrett
law
accounts
long
past
transition
step
program
benefit
taxpayers
defeat
purpose
transition
app
four
members
city
board
public
works
said
see
affidavit
gregory
taylor
record
cox
doc
affidavit
kipper
tew
ibid
doc
affidavit
susan
schalk
ibid
doc
affidavit
roger
brown
ibid
doc
rationality
city
distinction
draws
support
nature
choices
confronted
added
refunds
forgiveness
meant
adding
yet
administrative
costs
namely
cost
processing
refunds
time
tried
limit
city
costs
lost
revenues
limiting
forgiveness
refund
rules
homeowners
alone
led
involved
barrett
law
projects
justifiably
complained
unfairness
yet
granted
refunds
well
providing
forgiveness
involved
barrett
law
projects
projects
open
projects
involved
even
greater
administrative
burden
city
cut
checks
post
roberts
dissenting
without
taking
funding
programs
finding
additional
revenue
instead
city
tried
keep
amount
revenue
lost
constant
rational
goal
spread
evenly
among
apparently
thousands
homeowners
involved
barrett
laws
projects
result
yet
smaller
individual
payments
even
likely
small
justify
administrative
expense
finally
rationality
distinction
draws
support
fact
line
city
drew
distinguishing
past
payments
future
obligations
line
well
known
law
sometimes
line
takes
form
amnesty
program
involving
say
mortgage
payments
taxes
parking
tickets
supp
iv
federal
income
tax
provision
allowing
homeowners
omit
gross
income
newly
forgiven
home
mortgage
debt
martin
tax
amnesty
program
whereby
state
newly
forgave
penalties
liabilities
taxpayer
satisfied
debt
horn
chicago
city
parking
ticket
amnesty
program
whereby
outstanding
tickets
newly
settled
fraction
amount
specified
kind
line
consistent
distinction
law
often
makes
actions
previously
taken
yet
come
petitioners
contrary
arguments
sufficient
change
conclusion
petitioners
point
indiana
also
listed
different
consideration
namely
financial
hardship
one
factors
supporting
rationality
app
pet
cert
refer
city
resolution
said
barrett
law
may
present
financial
hardships
many
middle
lower
income
participants
need
sanitary
sewer
service
lieu
failing
septic
systems
app
argue
tax
distinction
us
necessarily
favor
homeowners
need
consider
argument
however
administrative
considerations
mentioned
sufficient
show
rational
basis
city
distinction
indiana
wrote
city
classification
rationally
related
part
legitimate
interests
reducing
administrative
costs
app
pet
cert
emphasis
added
record
city
proceedings
consistent
determination
see
app
developing
transition
city
considered
current
assessments
made
participants
active
barrett
law
projects
event
legislature
need
actually
articulate
time
purpose
rationale
supporting
classification
nordlinger
see
also
fitzgerald
similar
rather
burden
one
attacking
legislative
arrangement
negative
every
conceivable
basis
might
support
madden
see
heller
lehnhausen
see
also
allied
stores
ohio
bowers
upholding
state
tax
classification
resting
upon
state
facts
reasonably
conceived
creating
rational
distinction
petitioners
negative
indiana
first
listed
justification
namely
administrative
concerns
discussed
petitioners
go
propose
various
forgiveness
systems
included
refunds
least
already
paid
full
argue
systems
superior
system
city
chose
discussed
possible
systems
earlier
supra
advantages
disadvantages
even
petitioners
found
superior
system
constitution
require
city
draw
perfect
line
even
draw
line
superior
line
might
drawn
requires
line
actually
drawn
rational
line
reasons
set
forth
part
supra
believe
line
city
drew
rational
petitioners
argue
administrative
considerations
alone
justify
tax
distinction
lest
city
arbitrarily
allocate
taxes
among
citizens
forgiving
many
similarly
situated
citizens
ground
cheaper
easier
collect
taxes
people
many
brief
petitioners
petitioners
right
administrative
considerations
justify
unfair
system
administrative
considerations
never
justify
tax
differences
always
question
whether
reducing
expenses
particular
circumstances
provides
rational
basis
justifying
tax
difference
question
case
light
facts
made
known
generally
assumed
carolene
products
reasonable
believe
graft
refund
system
onto
city
forgiveness
decision
example
imposed
administrative
burden
collecting
paying
small
sums
say
per
month
years
said
supra
rational
city
draw
line
avoids
burden
petitioners
ones
attacking
legislative
arrangement
burden
showing
circumstances
otherwise
administrative
burden
insubstantial
justify
classification
done
finally
petitioners
point
precedent
view
makes
difficult
said
city
show
rational
basis
one
exception
however
cases
refer
involve
discrimination
based
residence
length
residence
hooper
bernalillo
county
assessor
state
tax
preference
distinguishing
resident
veterans
williams
vermont
state
use
tax
burdened
car
buyers
moved
metropolitan
life
ins
ward
state
law
taxed
insurance
companies
higher
rate
companies
zobel
williams
state
dividend
distribution
system
favored
residents
circumstances
present
exception
consists
allegheny
pittsburgh
coal
commission
webster
took
account
state
constitution
related
laws
required
equal
valuation
equally
valuable
property
considered
constitutionality
county
tax
assessor
practice
period
many
years
determining
property
values
time
property
last
sale
practice
meant
highly
unequal
valuations
two
identical
properties
sold
years
decades
apart
first
found
assessor
practice
rationally
related
county
avowed
purpose
assessing
properties
equally
true
current
value
intentional
systemic
discrepancies
practice
created
noted
light
state
constitution
related
laws
requiring
equal
valuation
rational
basis
practice
therefore
held
assessor
discriminatory
policy
violated
federal
constitution
insistence
upon
equal
protection
law
petitioners
argue
city
refusal
add
refunds
forgiveness
decision
similar
constitutes
refusal
apply
equally
indiana
state
law
says
costs
barrett
law
project
shall
equally
apportioned
ind
code
words
petitioners
say
even
city
decision
might
otherwise
related
rational
purpose
state
law
allegheny
makes
rare
case
facts
preclude
rational
basis
city
decision
comply
state
mandate
equality
allegheny
however
involved
clear
state
law
requirement
clearly
dramatically
violated
indeed
described
allegheny
rare
case
facts
precluded
alternative
reading
state
law
thus
alternative
rational
basis
nordlinger
city
followed
state
law
apportioning
cost
barrett
law
projects
equally
state
law
says
nothing
forgiveness
design
forgiveness
program
whether
rational
distinctions
permitted
adopt
petitioners
view
risk
transforming
ordinary
violations
ordinary
state
tax
law
violations
federal
constitution
reasons
conclude
city
violated
federal
equal
protection
clause
indiana
similar
determination
affirmed
roberts
dissenting
christine
armour
et
petitioners
city
indianapolis
indiana
et
al
writ
certiorari
indiana
june
chief
justice
roberts
justice
scalia
justice
alito
join
dissenting
years
ago
released
succinct
unanimous
opinion
striking
property
tax
scheme
west
virginia
ground
clearly
violated
equal
protection
clause
allegheny
pittsburgh
coal
commission
webster
allegheny
pittsburgh
held
county
failed
comport
equal
protection
requirements
assessed
property
taxes
primarily
basis
purchase
price
appropriate
adjustments
time
result
new
property
owners
assessed
roughly
times
rate
owned
property
longer
found
gross
disparit
tax
levels
justified
state
system
demanded
taxation
equal
uniform
va
art
case
affirmed
proposition
equal
protection
clause
violated
state
action
deprives
citizen
even
rough
equality
tax
treatment
state
law
specifically
provides
affected
taxpayers
category
tax
purposes
see
hillsborough
cromwell
equal
protection
clause
protects
individual
state
action
selects
discriminatory
treatment
subjecting
taxes
imposed
others
class
case
sanitary
sewers
project
allowed
property
owners
homes
hooked
city
indianapolis
sewer
system
state
barrett
law
law
requires
sewer
costs
primarily
apportioned
equally
among
abutting
lands
lots
ind
code
case
cost
came
property
owner
property
owners
petitioners
paid
full
front
others
elected
option
paying
installments
shortly
city
switched
new
financing
system
decided
forgive
debts
paying
installment
plan
city
refused
however
refund
portion
payments
made
identically
situated
neighbors
already
paid
full
amount
due
result
petitioners
paid
city
half
neighbors
paid
less
improvement
little
another
quarter
paid
less
petitioners
thus
paid
times
much
sewer
neighbors
seeking
justify
gross
disparity
city
explained
presented
three
choices
first
continued
collect
installment
plan
payments
yet
settled
debts
old
system
second
forgiven
debts
given
equivalent
refunds
made
lump
sum
payments
front
third
forgiven
future
payments
refunded
payments
already
made
first
two
choices
benefit
complying
state
law
treating
indianapolis
citizens
equally
comporting
constitution
city
chose
third
option
city
believe
sufficient
justify
system
effectively
charge
petitioners
times
neighbors
service
state
law
promised
equal
treatment
two
things
desire
avoid
administrative
hassle
fiscal
challeng
giving
back
money
wanted
keep
brief
respondents
agree
reasons
pass
constitutional
muster
even
rational
basis
review
city
argues
either
options
transitioning
away
barrett
law
immensely
difficult
administrative
standpoint
accepts
rationale
observing
rdinarily
administrative
considerations
justify
distinction
ante
cases
cites
however
stand
proposition
legislature
crafting
tax
scheme
may
take
administrative
concerns
consideration
creating
classes
taxable
entities
may
taxed
differently
see
lehnhausen
lake
shore
auto
parts
state
may
draw
lines
treat
one
class
individuals
entities
differently
others
madden
kentucky
referring
broad
discretion
classification
possessed
legislature
carmichael
southern
coal
coke
discussing
permissible
considerations
legislature
establishing
tax
scheme
however
indiana
tax
scheme
explicitly
provides
costs
primarily
apportioned
equally
among
abutting
lands
lots
ind
code
emphasis
added
legislature
therefore
decreed
abutting
landowners
within
class
never
held
administrative
burdens
justify
grossly
disparate
tax
treatment
state
provided
treated
alike
indeed
allegheny
pittsburgh
county
argued
unequal
assessments
based
dministrative
cost
concerns
avail
brief
respondent
reason
rejected
argument
obvious
equal
protection
clause
provide
state
shall
deny
person
within
jurisdiction
equal
protection
laws
unless
much
bother
even
inclined
decide
administrative
burdens
alone
may
sometimes
justify
grossly
disparate
treatment
members
class
hardly
case
city
claims
issue
refunds
process
difficult
requiring
pore
records
old
projects
determine
homeowners
overpaid
much
brief
respondents
holding
city
must
refund
petitioners
overpayments
mean
refund
overpayments
every
barrett
law
project
equal
protection
clause
concerned
gross
disparity
taxing
project
initiated
shortly
barrett
law
transition
disparity
petitioners
paid
comparison
installment
plan
neighbors
dramatic
respect
example
project
initiated
years
earlier
projects
even
installment
plan
payers
largely
satisfied
debts
resulting
far
less
significant
disparities
extent
ruling
petitioners
require
issuing
refunds
others
overpaid
barrett
law
think
city
workers
task
city
fact
already
produced
records
showing
exactly
much
payer
overpaid
every
active
barrett
law
project
penny
record
cox
indianapolis
sd
ind
doc
exh
city
employees
need
therefore
cut
checks
mail
certainly
job
need
involve
complicated
procedure
describes
attempt
bolster
administrative
convenience
argument
view
city
apparently
continue
accept
monthly
payments
installment
plan
homeowners
order
gradually
repay
money
owes
paid
lump
sum
ante
approach
never
dreamt
city
see
brief
respondents
setting
city
three
basic
transition
options
none
involved
gradual
refund
scheme
suggests
city
administrative
convenience
argument
one
law
comfortable
compares
city
decision
forgive
installment
balances
sort
parking
ticket
mortgage
payment
amnesty
programs
currently
abound
ante
analogy
misplaced
amnesty
programs
designed
entice
unlikely
ever
pay
debts
come
forward
pay
least
portion
owe
administrative
convenience
alone
justifies
schemes
sense
schemes
help
remedy
payment
inequities
prompting
pay
nothing
pay
least
fair
share
said
city
system
willing
concede
administrative
considerations
justify
unfair
system
city
arbitrarily
allocate
taxes
among
citizens
forgiving
many
others
ground
cheaper
easier
collect
taxes
people
many
ante
cold
comfort
quoted
language
accurately
describe
case
sure
reach
wisely
embrace
city
alternative
argument
unequal
tax
burden
justified
fiscally
challenging
issue
refunds
brief
respondents
fiscally
challenging
gives
euphemism
bad
name
city
claim
already
spent
petitioners
money
hardly
worth
response
city
recognizes
much
admits
provide
refunds
petitioners
arrang
ing
payments
law
sources
one
evade
returning
money
rightful
owner
simple
expedient
spending
fiscal
challenge
justification
seems
particularly
inappropriate
case
city
annual
budget
approximately
million
admits
cost
refunding
petitioners
money
approximately
adopted
budget
consolidated
city
indianapolis
marion
county
tr
oral
arg
equally
unconvincing
attempt
distinguish
allegheny
pittsburgh
claims
case
different
involved
clear
state
law
requirement
clearly
dramatically
violated
ante
nothing
less
stake
indiana
law
requires
costs
sewer
projects
apportioned
equally
among
abutting
lands
ind
code
city
instead
apportioned
costs
manning
project
petitioners
paid
times
much
neighbors
worse
still
done
order
avoid
administrative
hassle
save
bit
money
paraphrase
man
seasons
profits
city
nothing
give
treating
citizens
equally
whole
world
see
bolt
man
seasons
act
ii
vintage
ed
precedents
ask
much
government
area
rough
equality
tax
treatment
allegheny
pittsburgh
reminds
us
allegheny
pittsburgh
rare
case
ante
give
great
leeway
taxing
authorities
area
good
sufficient
reasons
every
generation
case
comes
along
needs
say
enough
enough
equal
protection
clause
retain
force
context
allegheny
pittsburgh
case
one
indiana
law
promised
neighboring
homeowners
treated
equally
came
paying
sewer
city
ended
charging
homeowners
times
charged
neighbors
equal
protection
violation
plain
accordingly
reverse
decision
indiana
respectfully
dissent
decision
otherwise