(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
I concur in the denial of injunctive relief, that issue having been rendered moot by the displacement of the original Capri Hotel residents, but I respectfully dissent from the holding of the majority that the purchase of the subject property with proceeds of industrial revenue bonds issued pursuant to Minn.St. 474.03 by the Port Authority of St. Paul does not constitute an “acquisition” for purposes of the Minnesota Uniform Relocation Act, Minn.St. 117.50, et seq. An examination of M.U.R.A. and its federal complement, the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C.A., § 4601, et seq., clearly indicates a legislative policy that the people displaced by government projects should not bear a disproportionate burden on behalf of the general public welfare. These laws were intended to provide for fair and consistent treatment for businesses, homeowners, and tenants facing dislocation as a consequence of government projects.
In relevant part M.U.R.A. guarantees certain relocation assistance to any person who moves his personal property from real property as a result of voluntary rehabilitation carried out by a person as a consequence of an “acquisition” by an acquiring authority. Minn.St. 117.50, subd. 3, and *748117.52. Although Minn.St. 117.50, subd. 4, purports to particularize “acquisition,” the definition is circular and ambiguous1 so that other indicia of legislative intent, and analogous case law under the model Federal act must be considered in deciding whether the transaction in issue is an “acquisition,” for purposes of M.U.R.A.
Because of an inability to obtain economical conventional financing, defendant C. G. Rein/C. G. Rein Construction Co., the owner of the Capri Hotel, approached co-defendant Port Authority of the City of St. Paul, a governmental subdivision pursuant to Minn.St. 458.09, et seq., to finance the Capri Hotel renovation through the issuance of industrial revenue bonds. Under this procedure, the Port Authority would obtain fee simple title to the property with the proceeds of bond sales to private parties. The Port Authority would continue to hold title to the property, approve rehabilitation plans, and hold limited supervisory rights and obligations on behalf of the bondholders, but C. G. Rein and Company would remain in actual possession of the property under the terms of a contemporaneous 30 year lease. At the conclusion of the lease term, title would return to Rein, subject to reservation of limited rights, upon payment of $1. It is apparent that for purposes of federal taxation,2 state taxation,3 and the law of equitable mortgages,4 the above transaction would be recognized as a financing arrangement, irrespective of the nominal transfer of title. Those purposes are not in issue here; the question is whether this transaction is within the intended ambit of “acquisition,” the threshold issue of M.U.R.A. applicability.
I would find that it is. The power to issue industrial revenue bonds under Minn.St. 474.03, invoked by the Port Authority here, is expressly premised on the public interest in encouraging commerce and preventing general economic deterioration. The bond issuance, favorable interest rates, tax-exempt status, and employment of the auspices and officers of the Port Authority demonstrate a degree of official involvement and economic subsidy in the Capri Hotel project. It is clear from cases arising under the Federal act that not all forms of governmental financial involvement mandate relocation assistance; merely holding or insuring a mortgage does not, for example.5 In my view, however, the actual acquisition of record title by the Port Authority, as an integral part in a voluntary rehabilitative project undertaken on behalf of the general public welfare, is an “acquisition” as contemplated by the demands of M.U.R.A. I would decline the invitation to restructure the transaction to avoid imposing relocation assistance obligations.
. “ ‘Acquisition’ includes:
“(a) acquisition by eminent domain;
“(b) acquisition by negotiation;
“(c) programs of area wide systematic housing code enforcement; and
“(d) demolition.” Minn.St. 117.50, subd. 4.
. See, 26 U.S.C. § 103(b)(2).
. Land O’Lakes Dairy Co. v. County of Wade-na, 229 Minn. 263, 39 N.W.2d 164 (1949) affirmed, 338 U.S. 897, 70 S.Ct. 251, 94 L.Ed. 552 (1949).
. Albright v. Henry, 285 Minn. 452, 174 N.W.2d 106 (1970); Gagne v. Hoban, 280 Minn. 475, 159 N.W.2d 896 (1968).
. Moorer v. Dept, of HUD, 561 F.2d 175 (8 Cir. 1977) (private development, private mortgage financing, but federally-sponsored interest subsidy payments and mortgage insurance under 12 U.S.C.A., § 1715z-l); Parlane Sportswear Company, Inc. v. Weinberger, 513 F.2d 835 (1 Cir. 1975), certiorari denied, 423 U.S. 925, 96 S.Ct. 269, 46 L.Ed.2d 252 (1975) (land acquired by private university which had been receiving substantial research grants from Federal government); Harris v. Lynn, 411 F.Supp. 692 (E.D.Mo.1976) affirmed 555 F.2d 1357 (8 Cir. 1977) (public housing project owned and operated by City of St. Louis demolished, with Federal modernization funding); Jones v. United States Dept. of Hous. & Urb. Dev. (HUD), 390 F.Supp. 579 (E.D.La.1974) (demolition to follow sale of housing project from one private developer to another, Federal government was mortgagee).
Minn.St. 474.03(5) explicitly authorizes the Port Authority to hold a mortgage on redevelopment property. The Port Authority’s election of the sale and leaseback arrangement, presumably for reasons of bondholder security, should bind it to its consequences under M.U. R.A.