270 S.W.2d 44 (Mo. 1954), 44390, State, on Inf. of Dalton v. Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority of Kansas City, Mo.

Docket Nº44390.
Citation270 S.W.2d 44, 364 Mo. 974
Opinion JudgeHOLLINGSWORTH, Judge.
Party NameSTATE, on Inf. of DALTON, Attorney General v. LAND CLEARANCE FOR REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF KANSAS CITY, MO., et al.
AttorneyJohn M. Dalton, Atty. Gen., Robert R. Welborn, Asst. Atty. Gen., for relator. Charles M. Blackmar, Charles B. Blackmar, Blackmar, Newkirk, Eager, Swanson & Midgley, Kansas City, for respondent, Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority of Kansas City, Mo. David M. Proctor, City Counselor, Doroth...
Judge PanelAll concur except TIPTON, J., not sitting.
Case DateJuly 12, 1954
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri

Page 44

270 S.W.2d 44 (Mo. 1954)

364 Mo. 974

STATE, on Inf. of DALTON, Attorney General

v.

LAND CLEARANCE FOR REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF KANSAS CITY, MO., et al.

No. 44390.

Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.

July 12, 1954

As Modified July 28, 1954.

Page 45

Quo warranto proceeding by Attorney General against city and against city's Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority, challenging constitutionality of Land Clearance for Redevelopment Law, as well as the legality of various activities taken or planned pursuant to such law. The Supreme Court, Hollingsworth, J., held, inter alia, that the law does not violate constitutional prohibition against giving special privileges, lending public credit and granting property in aid of a private person, association or corporation.

Ouster denied.

Page 46

[364 Mo. 975]John M. Dalton, Atty. Gen., Robert R. Welborn, Asst. Atty. Gen., for relator.

[364 Mo. 977] Charles M. Blackmar, Charles B. Blackmar, Blackmar, Newkirk, Eager, Swanson & Midgley, Kansas City, for respondent, Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority of Kansas City, Mo.

David M. Proctor, City Counselor, Dorothy F. Fardon, Asst. City Counselor, Kansas City, for respondent City of Kansas City.

[364 Mo. 980] HOLLINGSWORTH, Judge.

This is an original information in quo warranto brought by the Attorney General against respondent Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority of Kansas City, hereinafter referred to as ‘ Authority’, and against respondent City of Kansas City, hereinafter referred to as ‘ the City’ . The information challenges the constitutionality of the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority Law, Laws of Missouri, 1951, pages 300-323; 1953 Cum.Supp., RSMo 1949, Sections 99.300 through 99.660, V.A.M.S., and also challenges the legality of various activites of respondents which have been taken or are planned pursuant to said Law.

The case has been submitted on a stipulation of all essential facts, together with the admissions contained in the pleadings. The admitted facts are:

Under Title I of the Federal Housing Act of 1949, P.L. 171, 81st Congress, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1451 et seq., federal financial assistance to state and local governmental units is authorized. That Act provides that cities and other governmental units may apply to the Federal Housing and Home Finance Administration for loans, capital [364 Mo. 981] grants and advances for the purposes of planning projects for redevelopment of blighted and insanitary areas, for the acquisition of land, for the demolition of existing structures thereon, and for the making of site improvements. That Act also provides that after these things have been done, the land so acquired may be sole or leased for various private uses and that if such sale is at a loss the Federal Government will bear two-thirds of the loss and the participating local governmental unit one-third.

Since the adoption of the Federal Act the City has applied for various loans, grants, and advancements from the Federal Government. By Resolution No. 13817, adopted June 20, 1950, the City applied for and obtained a reservation of federal funds for capital grants. Said resolution contains an undertaking by the City to observe the requirements of federal law, to appropriate and allocate funds and to cooperate with the federal authorities. At various times since June, 1950, the City has made other

Page 47

applications, containing undertakings substantially similar to that contained in said resolution.

Pursuant to the terms of the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Law here in question, the City, on November 21, 1952, adopted Ordinance No. 16120, which declared the existence of blighted or insanitary areas within the corporate limits of the City, activated respondent Authority, and approved the exercise by Authority of all duties, powers, and functions authorized under the Law. Thereafter, the mayor duly appointed five commissioners, as required by the Law.

On or about May 15, 1953, the City authorized and approved by Ordinance No. 16613 a contract of novation executed between the City and Authority, by the terms of which certain contracts previously made by the City on account of redevelopment were transferred from the City to Authority, and Authority assumed responsibility for the performance thereof.

Authority, acting through the aforesaid commissioners, has caused public money to be expended for the survey of various areas in the City, which are claimed to be blighted or insanitary areas, has caused plans to be developed for the clearing and redevelopment of such areas and, unless ousted and prevented from so doing, Authority will continue to expend public moneys for such purposes in the future.

On or about June 19, 1953, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 16786, finding and declaring a certain area in the City, located generally between Missouri Avenue and Ninth Street and between Main Street and Baltimore Avenue in downtown Kansas City, referred to in the record as the ‘ Northside Area’, to be a ‘ blighted or insanitary area’ . (Prior thereto, on February 13, 1953, the City Council had adopted Ordinance No. 16352, approving a contract for final planning of the redevelopment of said Northside Area.)

[364 Mo. 982] Authority prepared and approved, by resolution of its commissioners dated July 6, 1953, a redevelopment plan for the aforesaid Northside Redevelopment Project and submitted same to the City Council. The plan was approved by the City Plan Commission and public hearings thereon, upon notice, were held by the City Council as provided by law. By Ordinance 16911 adopted September 4, 1953, the City Council approved the plan. On January 29, 1954, following approval by Authority and the City Plan Commission, and after notice and public hearings before the City Council, certain amendments to said plan were approved by the City Council in Ordinance No. 17451. By the terms of said redevelopment plan, Authority proposes to remove many buildings and structures located in said area and proposes to acquire said buildings and other land adjacent thereto by means of eminent domain, if unable to purchase said land from the owners thereof, and will so acquire said property unless ousted herein. Following acquisition of said land and the demolition of existing structures thereon, Authority proposes to sell and transfer and, unless ousted, will sell and transfer said land to private individuals or corporations for the purpose of constructing parking facilities to be operated by the purchaser of said land as a business for profit, and for the operation of other private or commercial enterprises, which sale may be at less than the cost of acquisition and demolition, thus involving a loss which will be borne in whole or in part by the City.

In the area covered by the aforesaid redevelopment plan, there is a building located at Ninth Street between Main and Delaware Streets, known as the Kay Hotel, which is of sound brick construction and not insanitary, blighted, unsafe, obsolete, dilapidated or dangerous, and there may be other sound structures in the said area. There is also a parcel of vacant land in said area located between Main and Delaware Streets on the south side of Seventh Street, approximately 24 feet in width and 110 feet in depth, being further described as Lot 26, Ross and Scarritt's Addition, which lot is not inherently insanitary or dangerous to health, safety and morals.

Page 48

The real estate containing the Kay Hotel and the parcel of vacant land above described were acquired by respondent Authority by purchase from the owners thereof and no eminent domain proceedings are contemplated to acquire these properties. Authority, however, claims that under the constitution and statutes it has the right to acquire land containing sound structures and vacant land, when located in a blighted or insanitary area for which a redevelopment plan has been approved, and to utilize the existing structures thereon as a part of the redevelopment plan, or to remove such structures from the land, when such action is necessary to the effectuation of the plan.

Respondent Authority, unless ousted, will propose other redevelopment plans and undertake same, and respondent city will participate [364 Mo. 983] in these other plans and will expend money and furnish services in aid thereof.

On August 5, 1952, the electors of the City authorized the City to become indebted in the amount of $1,500,000 for redevelopment purposes. The City proposes to expend this amount and other city funds in aid of Authority and in furtherance of the redevelopment project hereinabove mentioned and other redevelopment projects promoted and carried on by respondent Authority, and for the purpose of contributing one-third of the cost of losses occasioned by the carrying out of redevelopment projects.

Space will not permit a comprehensive digest of all of the provisions of the Land Clearance for Redevelopment Law. We shall here set forth such of them as will demonstrate its general scheme. Others will be mentioned when necessary to a discussion of the issues.

Section 99.310 declares that there exists in localities throughout the state blighted and insanitary areas (as herein defined) which constitute a growing menace, injurious and inimical to the public health, safety, morals, and welfare of the residents of the state; that such areas contribute to the spread of disease and crime and necessitate large expenditures for the preservation of health and safety, crime prevention, etc.; that this menace is beyond remedy and control in the exercise of the police power; that the elimination of such conditions, the acquisition and preparation of land in or necessary to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
49 practice notes
  • 536 S.W.3d 750 (Mo.App. E.D. 2017), ED105125, Neuner v. City of St. Louis
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals of Missouri
    • September 19, 2017
    ...bad faith. J.E. Dunn Constr. Co., Inc., 781 S.W.2d at 79 (citing State ex inf. Dalton v. Land Clearance for Redevelopment Auth., 364 Mo. 974, 270 S.W.2d 44, 52 (Mo. banc 1954)). " [T]he presumption is that the Legislature will levy a tax only for a ‘public purp......
  • 639 S.W.2d 886 (Mo.App. W.D. 1982), WD 32500, J.C. Nichols Co. v. City of Kansas City
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals of Missouri
    • September 21, 1982
    ...it declares that a specific purpose is public. In State on Inf. Dalton v. Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority of Kansas City, Mo., 364 Mo. 974, 270 S.W.2d 44 (1954) (en banc), the court held at 52 that where the legislature had deemed certain restrictions on the sale of property take......
  • 742 S.W.2d 146 (Mo. 1987), 69317, Tierney v. Planned Indus. Expansion Authority of Kansas City
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 15, 1987
    ...do not challenge the basic concepts underlying urban redevelopment, as recognized by State ex rel. Dalton v. Land Clearance Authority, 364 Mo. 974, 270 S.W.2d 44 (1954) and confirmed by numerous later decisions. 4 If the proper findings are made by the legislative authority, land may be acq......
  • 114 S.E.2d 688 (N.C. 1960), 604, Redevelopment Commission of Greensboro v. Security Nat. Bank of Greensboro
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • June 10, 1960
    ...v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 203 Md. 49, 96 A.2d 3, 98 A.2d 87; State on Information of Dalton v. Land Clearance Authority, 364 Mo. 974, 270 S.W.2d 44; Velishka v. City of Nashua, supra; Sorbino v. City of New Brunswick, 43 N.J.Super. 554, 129 A.2d 473; Murray v. La Guardia, su......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
47 cases
  • 536 S.W.3d 750 (Mo.App. E.D. 2017), ED105125, Neuner v. City of St. Louis
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals of Missouri
    • September 19, 2017
    ...bad faith. J.E. Dunn Constr. Co., Inc., 781 S.W.2d at 79 (citing State ex inf. Dalton v. Land Clearance for Redevelopment Auth., 364 Mo. 974, 270 S.W.2d 44, 52 (Mo. banc 1954)). " [T]he presumption is that the Legislature will levy a tax only for a ‘public purp......
  • 639 S.W.2d 886 (Mo.App. W.D. 1982), WD 32500, J.C. Nichols Co. v. City of Kansas City
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals of Missouri
    • September 21, 1982
    ...it declares that a specific purpose is public. In State on Inf. Dalton v. Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority of Kansas City, Mo., 364 Mo. 974, 270 S.W.2d 44 (1954) (en banc), the court held at 52 that where the legislature had deemed certain restrictions on the sale of property take......
  • 742 S.W.2d 146 (Mo. 1987), 69317, Tierney v. Planned Indus. Expansion Authority of Kansas City
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court of Missouri
    • December 15, 1987
    ...do not challenge the basic concepts underlying urban redevelopment, as recognized by State ex rel. Dalton v. Land Clearance Authority, 364 Mo. 974, 270 S.W.2d 44 (1954) and confirmed by numerous later decisions. 4 If the proper findings are made by the legislative authority, land may be acq......
  • 114 S.E.2d 688 (N.C. 1960), 604, Redevelopment Commission of Greensboro v. Security Nat. Bank of Greensboro
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • June 10, 1960
    ...v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 203 Md. 49, 96 A.2d 3, 98 A.2d 87; State on Information of Dalton v. Land Clearance Authority, 364 Mo. 974, 270 S.W.2d 44; Velishka v. City of Nashua, supra; Sorbino v. City of New Brunswick, 43 N.J.Super. 554, 129 A.2d 473; Murray v. La Guardia, su......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Blighting the way: urban renewal, economic development, and the elusive definition of blight.
    • United States
    • Fordham Urban Law Journal Vol. 31 Nbr. 2, January 2004
    • January 1, 2004
    ...v. W. Side Redevelopment Corp., 397 S.W.2d 635, 643, 646 (Mo. 1965) (citing State v. Land Clearance Redevelopment Auth. of Kansas City, 270 S.W.2d 44, 53 (Mo. 1954)) (emphasis omitted). (62.) Id. at 651. (63.) See FOGELSON, supra note 10, at 378. (64.) See Detwiler & Dale, supra note 13......
  • Interpreting eminent domain in Missouri: elimination of blight is Allright.
    • United States
    • Missouri Law Review Vol. 74 Nbr. 1, January 2009
    • January 1, 2009
    ...for the Poor?, 101 NW. U. L. REV. 1931, 1934 (2007). (76.) State ex rel. Dalton v. Land Clearance for Redevelopment Auth. of Kansas City, 270 S.W.2d 44, 52 (Mo. 1954) (en banc). (77.) Whitman, supra note 72, at 737. (78.) MO. REV. STAT. [section] 523.271.1 (Supp. 2008). (79.) Id. [section] ......