Allright Missouri, Inc. v. Civic Plaza Redevelopment Corp., 59180
| Citation | 538 S.W.2d 320 |
| Decision Date | 14 June 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 59180,59180 |
| Parties | ALLRIGHT MISSOURI, INC. et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. CIVIC PLAZA REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant, and Kansas City, Missouri and John Danforth, Attorney General of the State of Missouri, Defendants. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Sherwin L. Epstein, Stubbs, Epstein & Mann, Kansas City, for defendant-appellant.
William J. Koenigsdorf, Kansas City, for plaintiffs-respondents.
Edward E. Schmitt and Jesse L. Childers, Kansas City, for amicus curiae.
This is an action in which plaintiffs-respondents seek: (1) a judgment declaring certain statutes of the state, ordinances of the city of Kansas City, and a contract of the city with defendant-appellant unconstitutional and void; and (2) an injunction enjoining all defendants from proceeding with a redevelopment project described in one of the ordinances. Judgment was for plaintiffs and one of the defendants appealed to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Kansas City district. That court affirmed the judgment. On application of defendant-appellant we ordered the case transferred to this court. We reverse and remand.
The plaintiffs, Allright Missouri, Inc., Phil Jacobs Building Corporation and Joseph D. and Anna Marie Cassata 1 (hereinafter referred to collectively as Allright) are owners or lessees of property located within a part of the business district of defendant, Kansas City (hereinafter the City), proposed for redevelopment by defendant-appellant, Civic Plaza Redevelopment Corporation (hereinafter Civic Plaza). Civic Plaza in an urban redevelopment corporation organized under Chapter 353. 2
On March 9, 1967, 3 Civic Plaza filed with the city clerk an application for approval of a plan for redevelopment of a part of the business district. An amended development plan was filed April 30, 1969. The area proposed for this redevelopment is described generally as being bounded on the north by 13th street; on the east by Locust between 13th and 14th streets, and the junction of 14th street with the Crosstown Freeway; on the south by the Crosstown Freeway; and on the west by McGee street. The Jackson county courthouse and the public library are immediately north of and across 13th street from the area. One block north of the area is the City Hall and Police Headquarters. The new Federal Office building is immediately northeast and across the intersection of 13th and Locust streets. And the Election Board and State Office buildings are immediately east across Locust. The South Humboldt Urban Renewal Project lies generally east and northeast of the area. The Crosstown Center Urban Renewal Project described in Parking Systems, Inc. v. Kansas City Downtown Redevelopment Corporation, 518 S.W.2d 11 (Mo.1974) is one block west of the area.
The area covered by the plan consists of approximately six blocks divided into 26 separate tracts, 12 of which (or 45.4% of the total land area) are surface parking lots. The remaining 14 tracts are occupied by commercial buildings, eight of which are one-story, two are two-story, one is three-story, and two are six-story buildings. In general, the plan calls for the acquisition of all property in the project area and demolition of all buildings, except the Red Cross and Civic Plaza National Bank buildings. These two would be kept intact, but improved to conform to the overall design and scheme of rehabilitation. The plan includes the construction of several new buildings in seven years. Phase 1 includes a six-level parking structure covering two blocks with three 25-story buildings (referred to as Towers) over the parking structure. Phases 2, 3 and 4 include rehabilitation of the Red Cross and Civic Plaza National Bank buildings and the construction of a new parking structure immediately south of those two buildings. Phases 5 and 6 include the construction of underground parking facilities and a park-like green area at ground level. Phase 7 includes the construction of an office building at least 14 stories high. The estimated cost is approximately $50,000,000.
After the amended plan was filed, the application was referred to The City Plan Commission (hereinafter the Commission). Notice was published that a public hearing would be held to consider the plan on May 22, 1969, at the City Hall. It was held; all proponents and opponents of the plan present and desiring to be heard were heard; thereafter the Commission filed its report recommending that the plan be disapproved for reasons fairly summarized by a committee of the City Council as follows:
'1. The area can be successfully redeveloped without the Urban Redevelopment law.
'2. The development plan does not proceed in an orderly fashion.
Thereafter, the matter of this redevelopment plan (with an ordinance which had been submitted to the Council by the Commission providing for disapproval of the plan) was referred by the City Council to its Committee on Plans and Zoning (hereinafter the Committee) for investigation, consideration, and its recommendation. After publication of notice that it would do so, the Committee held a public hearing on September 25, 1969. Three witnesses testified for and 13 against the plan. In its report of this hearing the Committee referred to and summarized the contentions presented by the opponents as: (1) 'that the present property owners did not want to sell their land,' and (2) 'that the Redevelopment Corporation did not have the financial ability as required by our ordinances to proceed with the project.' In addition to this hearing, the Committee held other hearings, public and private, including discussions with the principals of Civic Plaza regarding its financial ability to carry out the project; meetings to view and investigate the project area; and discussions of the project at other meetings and council sessions. Along with knowledge acquired by its investigation and a transcript of the testimony heard at its September 25, 1969, hearing the Committee also had for consideration in its deliberations two dozen photographs of buildings and open spaces in the project area and a two-volume (estimated to be at least 300 pages) 'Appraisal and Blight Study' made and prepared by the Vincent J. O'Flaherty Company for Civic Plaza and filed by it as one of the documents in support of its application. The report and recommendation of the Committee with its findings (and the evidence considered by it) was filed with the city clerk and an oral presentation thereof was made and discussed at a regular meeting of the City Council. With its report the Committee filed a 'Committee Substitute for Ordinance No. 37349' and recommended that the substitute 'do pass.' The Committee's substitute ordinance, adopted by the City Council March 20, 1970, declared (1) that the area is blighted and redevelopment thereof as proposed in Civil Plaza's plan necessary and in the public interest; (2) that Civic Plaza is financially able to undertake and complete the plan as proposed; (3) that acquisition of the properties in the area by Civic Plaza through the power of eminent domain is necessary and in the public interest, and is authorized; (4) that the contract covering the redevelopment project (a copy of which was attached to the ordinance) as proposed and executed by Civic Plaza be executed for and on behalf of the City by its proper officers.
As indicated, the evidence available to and considered by the City Council in making its determination that the area was blighted and that Civic Plaza's proposed project for redevelopment thereof should be approved was voluminous. It related to the area generally and to each property proposed for acquisition. The buildings in the area range in age from three...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Birmingham v. Tutwiler Drug Co., Inc.
...which, by its nature, is better suited to legislative than judicial determination. Brammer, supra; Allright Missouri, Inc. v. Civic Plaza Redevelopment Corp., 538 S.W.2d 320, 324 (Mo.1976); City of Phoenix v. Superior Court of Maricopa County, 137 Ariz. 409, 671 P.2d 387, 390-91 We opine th......
-
Tucson Community Development and Design Center, Inc. v. City of Tucson
...of resolutions adopted under redevelopment statutes are in accord. Parking Systems, Inc., supra; Allright Missouri, Inc. v. Civic Plaza Redevelopment Corp., 538 S.W.2d 320 (Mo.1976); West v. City Commission of Garden City, 214 Kan. 473, 520 P.2d 1290 (1974); Davis v. City of Lubbock, 160 Te......
-
Schweig v. City of St. Louis
...Kansas City Downtown Redevelopment Corporation, supra, 518 S.W.2d 11, 15(1) (Mo.1974). See also, Allright Missouri, Inc. v. Civic Plaza Redevelopment Corporation, supra, 538 S.W.2d 320, 324(1) (Mo.banc 1976). "The issue of whether a legislative determination of blight is arbitrary turns upo......
-
Tierney v. Planned Indus. Expansion Authority of Kansas City, s. 69317
...is shown to be so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to an abuse of the legislative process. Allright Missouri, Inc. v. Civic Plaza Redevelopment Corporation, 538 S.W.2d 320 (Mo. banc The owners do not challenge these basic principles. They assert rather that the legislative findings i......
-
Redevelopment condemnations: a blight or a blessing upon the land?
...STALEY &BLAIR, supra note 22, at 9. (99.) Mansnerus, supra note 21, at 438. (100.) Allright Mo., Inc. v. Civic Plaza Redev. Corp., 538 S.W.2d 320, 324 (Mo. 1976) (en (101.) Id. (102.) STALEY &BLAIR, supra note 22, at 8-9. (103.) Lefcoe, supra note 2, at 821. (104.) See, e.g., Clay C......
-
Blighting the way: urban renewal, economic development, and the elusive definition of blight.
...Div. 1978). (141.) Oberndorf v. Denver, 900 F.2d 1434, 1438-39 (10th Cir. 1990); Allright Mo., Inc. v. Civic Plaza Redevelopment Corp., 538 S.W.2d 320, 322 (Mo. 1976); Parking Sys. Inc., 518 S.W.2d at 13; Levin v. Bridgewater, 274 A.2d 1, 21 (N.J. (142.) See Oberndorf, 900 F.2d at 1439; All......
-
Interpreting eminent domain in Missouri: elimination of blight is Allright.
...Allright, 240 S.W.3d at 781. (117.) See Blank, supra note 109. (118.) See, e.g., Allright Mo., Inc. v. Civic Plaza Redevelopment Corp., 538 S.W.2d 320, 323 (Mo. 1976) (en (119.) Whitman, supra note 72, at 734. (120.) MO. REV. STAT. [section] 523.271.1 (Supp. 2008). Missouri law provides tha......