notice of special referendum election and including as exhibit Resolution 2003-77, ¶¶ (a), (d), calling special election). The referendum did not authorize METRO to use any property taxes to fund the implementation of the authorized transit plan. Thus, Scarbrough cannot argue that any of her property taxes are being used to fund the complained-of activity. The “contract with voters” cases cited by Scarbrough similarly fail to accord her standing. Each of these cases acknowledged the sta y owners subject to tax for bond issued pursuant to county bond election, affirming injunction against diversion of proceeds of bond sales to construction of bridge at different location than presented in petition for bond election); see also Taxpayers for Sensible Priorities, 79 S.W.3d at 675-76 (<HOLDING>). Scarbrough does not have standing under the
holding that in order to support a fifth amendment taking via inverse condemnation there must be not only a federal activity or project which is permanent in nature but that such activity or project must impose on private property certain consequences which are themselves permanent and that their recurrence is inevitable even if only intermittent holding that both faa and taa applied where contracts stated they shall be governed by the law of the place where the project is located holding that vermonts licensing scheme was preempted by the fpa because it enabled the state to thwart a federal project by withholding a state permit holding that permitting a state official to proceed with a highway project despite alleged nepa violations by federal participants in the project would make a sham of the reconsideration required by federal law holding following sale of general obligation bonds approved by city voters to develop waterway project and initiation of work on project it is elementary that the proceeds of bonds voted by the people must be expended for the purposes for which they were voted