Crommett v. City of Portland

Decision Date03 September 1954
Citation107 A.2d 841,150 Me. 217
PartiesPhillis H. CROMMETT et al., In Eq. v. CITY OF PORTLAND et al.
CourtMaine Supreme Court

Arthur Peabody, Portland, for plaintiffs.

Barnett I. Shur, Portland, for defendants.

Before FELLOWS, C. J., and WILLIAMSON, TIRRELL, WEBBER, BELIVEAU and TAPLEY, JJ.

WILLIAMSON, Justice.

On report upon an agreed statement of facts. This is a bill in equity to test the constitutionality of the 'Slum Clearance and Redevelopment Authority Law.' P. & S.L.1951, c. 217, sometimes hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' or the '1951 Act.'

The plaintiffs are ten taxable inhabitants of the City of Portland and bring the bill under R.S.1944, c. 95, § 4, subd. XIII. The defendants are the City of Portland, the members of the City Council, the City Treasurer, and five persons 'in their purported capacity as Commissioners of the Slum Clearance and Redevelopment Authority.'

The plaintiffs in substance seek to restrain and enjoin: (1) payment of $60,000 by the city to the Authority, and (2) the 'purported' commissioners from accepting payments from the city and from exercising any powers under the 1951 Act. Further, the plaintiffs pray that the Court decree that the resolution of the City Council creating the Slum Clearance and Redevelopment Authority and the council order authorizing the $60,000 payment are 'illegal and invalid and that (the 1951 Act) is unconstitutional and void and in violation of the Constitution of this State.'

A temporary injunction issued and is now in effect. At the hearing on the bill as amended, answer, replication, and an agreed statement of facts, the justice presiding, with the consent of the parties, reported the case to the Law Court for hearing and decision.

The issues are set forth by the plaintiffs in their bill as follows:

'Fourteenth: That Chapter 217 of the Private and Special Laws of Maine, 1951, is unconstitutional and void for the following reasons: (1) it authorizes the taking of private property for private use, in violation of Article I, Section 21 of the Constitution of the State of Maine and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; (2) it authorizes an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power, in violation of Article III, Sections 1 and 2, Article IV, Part First, Section 1, and Article IV, Part Third, Section 1, of the Constitution of the State of Maine; (3) it authorizes the loan of the credit of the State, in violation of Article IX, Section 14 of the Constitution of the State of Maine, and (4) it authorizes the expenditure of public funds for a private use contrary to the law of the State of Maine.'

The pertinent constitutional provisions read:

'Private property shall not be taken for public uses without just compensation; nor unless the public exigencies require it.' Maine Const. Art. I, § 21.

'The legislature * * * shall have full power to make and establish all reasonable laws and regulations for the defense and benefit of the people of this state, not repugnant to this constitution, nor to that of the United States.' Maine Const. Art. IV, Part Third, Section 1 '* * * nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; * * *.' U.S.Const. Amend. XIV.

In considering in detail the 1951 Act and the facts in the instant case, it will be helpful to keep in mind the basic purposes and methods of the slum clearance and redevelopment program well stated in the following words:

'In essence, redevelopment contemplates the acquisition of a slum, blighted or deteriorating area selected in accordance with a general city or town plan, clearing, replanning and making the area available by sale or lease to private and public sources for redevelopment pursuant to a predetermined plan. Since the local agency will suffer a loss in acquiring, clearing and replanning the area for its new uses, federal grants are available to help meet the deficit, with the Federal Government absorbing two-thirds of the loss. As in the case of local annual contributions required under the United States Housing Act, the local contribution may be and undoubtedly will be in forms other than cash.'

The Federal Government and Housing (1952) Wis.L.Rev. 581, 609.

We summarize the 1951 Act and set forth the provisions in which we are particularly interested.

'Section 2. Findings and declaration of necessity. It is hereby found and declared that there exist in the city of Portland slum and blighted areas (as herein defined) which constitute a serious and growing menace, injurious and inimical to the public health, safety, morals and welfare of the residents of said city of Portland; that the existence of such areas contributes substantially and increasingly to the spread of disease and crime, necessitating excessive and disproportionate expenditures of public funds for the preservation of the public health and safety, for crime prevention, correction, prosecution, punishment and the treatment of juvenile delinquency and for the maintenance of adequate police, fire and accident protection and other public services and facilities; that such areas constitute an economic and social liability, substantially impair or arrest the sound growth of said city of Portland; that this menace is beyond remedy and control solely by regulatory process in the exercise of the police power and can not be dealt with effectively by the ordinary operations of private enterprise without the aids herein provided; that the elimination of slum conditions or conditions of blight, the acquisition and preparation of land in or necessary to the development of slum or blighted areas and its sale or lease for development or redevelopment in accordance with the master plan and redevelopment plans of said city of Portland and any assistance which may be given by any state public body in connection therewith, are public uses and purposes for which public money may be expended and private property acquired; and that the necessity in the public interest for the provisions hereinafter enacted is hereby declared as a matter of legislative determination.

'Section 3. Definitions.

* * *

* * *

'(g) 'Blighted area' shall mean:

'1. An area in which there is a predominance of buildings or improvements which, by reason of dilapidation, deterioration, age or obsolescence; or inadequate provision for ventilation, light, air, sanitation or open spaces; or high density of population and overcrowding; or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire and other causes; or any combination of such factors, is conducive to ill health, or transmission of disease, or infant mortality, or juvenile delinquency and crime, and is detrimental to the public health, safety, morals or welfare.

'2. An area which, by reason of the predominance of defective or inadequate street layout; or faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility or usefulness; or insanitary or unsafe conditions; or deterioration of site or other improvements; or diversity of ownership, tax or special assessment delinquency exceeding the fair value of the land, defective or unusual conditions of title; or improper subdivision or obsolete platting; or mixture of incompatible land uses; or the existence of conditions which endanger life or proprety by fire and other causes; or any combination of such factors, substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the municipality, or constitutes an economic or social liability and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals or welfare in its present condition and use.

'(h) 'Slum area' shall mean a blighted area in an extreme state of deterioration and decay.

'(i) 'Redevelopment project' shall mean any work or undertaking:

'(1) To acquire slum areas or blighted areas or portions thereof, including land, structures or improvements not in themselved deteriorated, the acquisition of which is necessary or incidental to the proper clearance, development or redevelopment of such slum or blighted areas or to the prevention of the spread or recurrence of slum conditions or conditions of blight;

'(2) To clear any such areas by demolition or removal of existing buildings, structures, streets, utilities or other improvements thereon, and to install, construct or reconstruct streets, utilities and site improvements essential to the preparation of sites for uses in accordance with a redevelopment plan.

'(3) To sell, lease or otherwise make available land in such areas for residential, recreational, commercial, industrial or other use or for public use, except for public housing, or to retain such land for public use, except for public housing, in accordance with a redevelopment plan. Public housing shall mean housing erected by a local housing authority in accordance with chapter 441 of the public laws of 1949.

'The term 'redevelopment project' may also include the preparation of a redevelopment plan, the planning, survey and other work incident to a redevelopment project and the preparation of all plans and arrangements for carrying out a redevelopment project.

* * *

* * *

'Section 4. Creation of slum clearance and redevelopment authority.

* * *

* * *

'Section 5. Powers of the Authority. The Authority shall constitute a public body corporate and politic, exercising public and essential governmental functions, and having all the powers necessary to carry out and effectuate the purposes and provisions of this law, including the following powers in addition to others herein granted:

* * *

* * *

'(d) * * * to enter into contracts with redevelopers of property containing convenants, restrictions and conditions regarding the use of such property for residential, commercial, industrial, recreational purposes or for public purposes in accordance with the redevelopment plan and such other covenants, restrictions, and conditions as the Authority may deem necessary to prevent a recurrence of slum or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • Common Cause v. State
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • January 7, 1983
    ...To be constitutionally valid, taxation at either the state or local level must be for a public purpose. E.g., Crommett v. City of Portland, 150 Me. 217, 107 A.2d 841 (1954); Opinion of the Justices, 152 Me. 440, 131 A.2d 904 (1957). A corollary of that proposition is that the expenditure of......
  • Davis v. City of Lubbock
    • United States
    • Texas Supreme Court
    • July 15, 1959
    ...777, 266 P.2d 105; Kansas: State ex rel. Fatzer v. Urban Renewal Agency, 1956, 179 Kan. 435, 296 P.2d 656; Maine: Crommett v. City of Portland, 1954, 150 Me. 217, 107 A.2d 841; New Jersey: Redfern v. Board of Commissioners of Jersey City, 1948, 137 N.J.L. 356, 59 A.2d 641; New York: Murray ......
  • Portland Pipe Line Corp. v. Environmental Imp. Com'n
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • June 4, 1973
    ...than one interpretation, we must adopt an interpretation, if one there be, which will render it constitutional. Crommett v. City of Portland, 150 Me. 217, 107 A.2d 841 (1954); In re Stubbs, 141 Me. 143, 39 A.2d 853 Portland Pipe Line is a Maine corporation engaged in business as a common ca......
  • Miller v. City of Tacoma
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • February 1, 1963
    ...connection between the evil sought to be cured and the means adopted by the legislature to cure it. In Crommett v. City of Portland, 150 Me. 217, 235, 107 A.2d 841 (1954), quoted in Hogue v. Port of Seattle, supra, the court upheld the validity of slum clearance redevelopment authority. It ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT