The County’s “primary interest” is not compensation, but raw economic competition and a wide ranging review of what is “best” for the community. These goals are simply not within the zone of interests protected by the Code. The authority from other states is in accord with our view. City of Dania, 658 So.2d at 163; Lake County Forest Pres. Dist., 157 Ill.Dec. 96, 571 N.E.2d at 1115; City of Crystal Lake, 76 Ill.Dec. 728, 459 N.E.2d at 643; see also State ex rel. State Highway Comm’n v. Hudspeth, 303 S.W.2d 703, 705 (Mo.Ct.App.1957) (per curiam) (municipality had no right to intervene in condemnation action based on its assertion that the public interest, safety and welfare of the citizens was at stake); City & County of Denver v. Bd. of Comm’rs, 113 Colo. 150, 156 P.2d 101, 108 (1945) (<HOLDING>). {61} The County’s reliance on Town of Mesilla
holding that a neighboring county had no standing to raise the question of the necessity for the rise of a proposed taking based on its loss of a tax base holding that it was not the taxpayers responsibility to pursue the different tax units to which the illegally levied county tax was proportioned as the taxpayer was entitled to recover the full amount of the tax from the county the collecting entity holding a county and a road district had standing to sue state highway commission and county tax collector based on their interest in and control over the public roads of the county holding that a county liquor license board had no standing to appeal the reversal of its decision holding that the county had no standing to sue the state to recover taxes illegally obtained from citizens unless the money belongs to the county