Alanel Corp. v. Indianapolis Redevelopment Commission

• Decision Date: 12 December 1958
• Docket Number: No. 29704,29704
• Citation: 239 Ind. 35,154 N.E.2d 515
• Parties: ALANEL CORPORATION, for itself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellant, v. INDIANAPOLIS REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, Richard H. Oberreich, Fred T. Greene, J. Albert Smith, Charles E. Wagner, and Paul L. McCord, as Members of and constituting the Indianapolis Redevelopment Commission of the Department of Redevelopment of the City of Indianapolis, Indiana, City of Indianapolis, Indiana, acting for and on behalf of the Indianapolis Redevelopment District, Phillip L. Bayt, as Mayor of the City of Indianapolis, Indiana, and Charles H. Boswell, as City Controller of the City of Indianapolis, Indiana, Appellees.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 515

154 N.E.2d 515

239 Ind. 35

ALANEL CORPORATION, for itself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellant, v. INDIANAPOLIS REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION, Richard H. Oberreich Fred T. Greene, J. Albert Smith, Charles E. Wagner, and Paul L. McCord, as Members of and constituting the Indianapolis Redevelopment Commission of the Department of Redevelopment of the City of Indianapolis, Indiana, City of Indianapolis Indiana, acting for and on behalf of the Indianapolis Redevelopment District, Phillip L. Bayt, as Mayor of the City of Indianapolis, Indiana, and Charles H. Boswell, as City Controller of the City of Indianapolis, Indiana, Appellees.

No. 29704.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Dec. 12, 1958.

Henry W. Blue, Indianapolis, for appellant. Grabill & Baker, Indianapolis, of counsel.

Harry T. Ice, Robert D. Risch, Robert D. McCord, Jr., Indianapolis, for appellees Indianapolis Redevelopment Commission, Richard H. Oberreich, Fred T. Greene, J. Albert Smith, Charles E. Wagner and Paul L. McCord.

Michael B. Reddington, Indianapolis, for appellees City of Indianapolis, Phillip L. Bayt and Charles H. Boswell.

Ross, McCord, Ice & Miller, Indianapolis, of counsel, for appellees.

BOBBITT, Judge.

Appellant, Alanel Corporation, brought this action, for itself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, seeking to enjoin appellees from proceeding under Ch. 276 of the Acts of 1945, and Ch. 170 of the Acts of 1957, being § 48-8501 et seq., Burns' 1950 Replacement, to condemn appellant's property, issue bonds, to pay acquistition costs, and levy taxes to pay the principal and interest on such bonds.

The complaint alleges that the Redevelopment Act of 1945 and the 1957 Supplementary Act are unconstitutional under Art. 1, § 1, Art. 1, § 21, Art. 13, § 1, Art. 11, § 13, and Art. 4, § 19 of the Constitution of Indiana and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. These allegations present the only questions for our determination.

The different questions raised and discussed in appellant's brief will be considered in the same order as there presented.

Section 2 of the 1945 Act declares the public policy in pertinent part to be that the housing accommodations in blighted areas are, to a large extent, unsanitary and unsafe, and that the use of the same causes an increase in and spread of disease and crime, constituting a meance to the health, safety, morals and welfare of the residents of the larger cities in this State; that the conditions existing in such areas necessitate excessive and disproportionate expenditures of public funds for crime prevention and punishment, public health and safety; that the clearance, replanning and revelopment of such blighted areas is a public and governmental function which cannot be accomplished through the ordinary operations of private enterprise, due to the necessity for the exercise of the power of eminent domain; that the clearance, replanning and redevelopment of such areas will benefit the health, safety, morals and welfare of the cities in which such blighted areas exist and the State of Indiana; and that the clearance, replanning and redevelopment of such blighted areas are public uses and purposes for which public money may be spent and private property acquired.

Section 3 of the 1945 Act defines a blighted area as 'any area within the corporate limits of a city to which this act is applicable, or in unincorporated territory within one thousand [1,000] feet of such corporated limits, which because of lack of development, cessation of growth, deterioration of improvements or character of occupancy, age, obsolescence, substandard buildings or other factors which have impaired values or prevent a normal development of property, or use thereof, has become under current conditions undesirable for or impossible of normal development and occupancy.'

Sections 11 and 12 of the 1945 Act and § 1 of the 1957 Act empower the Development Commission to study, investigate, select and acquire such areas within the Redevelopment District as such Commission may determine to be blighted and cannot be corrected by regulatory processes or by the ordinary operations of private enterprise.

Section 1 of the 1957 Act further provides that the Redevelopment Commission created and operating under the Redevelopment Act of 1945 shall be authorized to plan and undertake, alone or in conjunction with other departments of the city, 'projects for rehabilitating, preventing the spread of or eliminating slums, blighted, deteriorated or deteriorating areas, both residential and non-residential, which projects may include the repair or rehabilitation of buildings or other improvements by the Commission, owners or tenants, the acquisition of real property, that demolition and removal of buildings or improvements on buildings acquired by the commission where necessary to eliminate unhealthful, unsanitary or unsafe conditions, lessen density, reduce traffic hazards, eliminate obsolete or other uses detrimental to public welfare, * * *.'

On October 2, 1957 the Redevelopment Commission of Indianapolis adopted a declaratory resolution, in pertinent part, as follows:

'Whereas, the Commission has made investigations, studies and surveys of various blighted areas within the City of Indianapolis, Indiana, and of the costs contributing to the blighting of such areas; and 'Whereas, such investigations, studies and surveys have been made in cooperation with the various departments and bodies of the City and have been directed to determining the proper use of land so as to best serve the interests of the City and its inhabitants, both from the standpoint of human and economic values, and as a result of such investigations, studies and surveys the Commission has heretofore found that the area hereinafter described has become blighted to such an extent that such conditions cannot be corrected by regulatory process or by the ordinary operations of private enterprise without resort to the provisions of the Redevelopment Act of 1945, as supplemented by Chapter 170 of the Acts of 1957, and that the public health and welfare would be benefitted by the acquisition and redevelopment of such area under the provisions of said acts; and

'Whereas, the Commission now finds that the area hereinafter described is one in which: (a) the buildings are used in part as dwelling accommodations and in part for commercial purposes; (b) the housing accommodations are to a large extent unsanitary and unsafe, and the use of the same causes an increase and spread in disease and crime; (c) the buildings used for commercial purposes are to a large extent unsanitary and unsafe; (d) the conditions existing in said area necessitate excessive and disportionate [disproportionate] expenditure of public funds for crime prevention and punishment, public health and safety, fire and accident protection, and other public services and facilities of the City, and impair the value of property in surrounding areas; (e) the existing conditions result in the reduction of the value of taxable property within the City; (f) the conditions are beyond remedy and control by regulatory process because of the obsolete and deteriorated character of the buildings and other improvements, faulty planning and land use, shifting of population and technological and social changes; (g) the acquisition and redevelopment of said area in accordance with the general plan hereinafter referred to will benefit the health, safety, morals and welfare, and will serve to protect and increase property values in the City and the State; (h) such acquisition and redevelopment of said area are public uses and purposes; and

* * *

* * *

'Be It Resolved by the Indianapolis Redevelopment Commission that the area which is bounded and described as follows:

'(Here describing real estate to be taken);

is hereby found and declared to be a blighted area within the meaning of the Redevelopment Act of 1945, as supplemented by Chapter 170 of the Acts of 1957; that said blighted area constitutes a meance to the social and economic interests of the City and its inhabitants, and it will be of public utility and benefit to acquire such area and to redevelop the same under the provisions of said acts.'

The area which the Commission proposes to acquire consists of eight acres and, including appellant's property, is presently devoted 60% to commercial use and 40% to residential use.

Appellant does not contend that its land is not within a planned area as defined in the Act. Nor does it question the legality of the action or proceedings of the Commission, if the Acts under which they have proceeded are constitutional.

First: Appellant asserts that the 'definitions, guides and standards' set forth in the Act are 'vague and insufficient,' and do not meet the requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

'Courts are always reluctant to strike down legislative enactments, especially when they have been long acquiesced in, and he who raises the question of constitutionality must assume the burden of making it clearly appear. When it is asserted that a statute is so indefinite that its enforcement would result in a denial of due process or amount to an unauthorized delegation of legislative functions, the court must consider the enactment in the light of the problems with which the Legislature was undertaking to deal. * * * such statutes are valid when they clearly designate the dangers and hazards against which the Legislature sought to provide protection and reasonably indicate the means or methods by which that is to be accomplished.' Illinois Steel Company v. Fuller, 1939, 216 Ind. 180, 185, 186, 23 N.E.2d 259, 262.

'While a law as enacted must be complete, where the legislature has laid down a standard which is as definitely described as is reasonably practicable, * * * it may authorize an administrative...