Bailey v. Housing Authority of City of Bainbridge, 20373
| Decision Date | 06 March 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 20373,20373 |
| Citation | 107 S.E.2d 812,214 Ga. 790 |
| Parties | Stella Fredonia Brockett BAILEY v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CLTY OF BAINBRIDGE et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Earle B. May, Jr., Bainbridge, for plaintiff in error.
J. Willis Conger, Bainbridge, Spalding, Sibley, Troutman, Meadow & Smith, John Izard, Jr., Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
The petition of Stella Fredonia Brockett Bailey, against the Housing Authority of the City of Bainbridge and the City of Bainbridge, alleges that she is a citizen and taxpayer and is the owner of described real estate lying within the City of Bainbridge and the Pear Orchard Redevelopment area, and sets out the steps taken by the Housing Authority preparatory to carrying out the Pear Orchard Redevelopment project. The various features of the redevelopment plan and the resolutions of the Housing Authority and the City of Bainbridge are summarized, and the plaintiff alleges that the redevelopment area contains houses which are not slums and contains a few commercial buildings, as well as vacant land; but alleges, in paragraph 13 of the petition, that the acquisition of all said properties is necessary to remove or prevent the spread of slums in the City of Bainbridge. The plaintiff makes certain allegations with reference to Federal assistance already rendered to the Housing Authority and expected to be rendered in the accomplishment of the project, and that the Federal Government will provide all funds necessary to carry out the project, provided the local authorities make provision to pay one-third of the ultimate loss from the project. She alleges that the Housing Authority has undertaken to condemn her property, attaching the condemnation notice as an exhibit to her petition, and that, unless enjoined, the Housing Authority will proceed to carry out the redevelopment program, including the taking of the plaintiff's property, and that the City of Bainbridge will pay over to the Housing Authority public funds to be used in the accomplishment of the project. The petition alleges that the plaintiff's property is located in a slum area, which has been selected for a redevelopment project; that the redevelopment plan, which has been duly prepared and approved, indicates that the Housing Authority will acquire feesimple title to all of the land and improvements thereon within the redevelopment area; that it will remove all existing structures in the area; that certain streets will be closed and new streets created; and that thereafter the entire area will be promptly sold; that slightly more than one-half of the area will be sold to private enterprise under reasonable competitive bidding procedures, and the balance of the area will be sold to the city for use as a public cemetery and public park. It is not contended that the defendants have failed to comply with the terms of the Urban Redevelopment Law (Ga.L.1955, p. 354); but, as grounds for the equitable relief prayed, she alleges that this law, and the acts taken and proposed to be taken by the defendants thereunder are null and void, because of the alleged unconstitutionality of the Urban Redevelopment Law, it being alleged that it violates described provisions of the State and Federal Constitutions. To this petition the defendants interposed their general demurrers, which were sustained by the trial court and the petition was dismissed. To this judgment the plaintiff excepts. In the brief of counsel for the plaintiff it is stated that the basic and fundamental question presented by the various constitutional attacks is whether such a taking of private property as is here proposed is for a 'public use' within the meaning of the Constitution of Georgia, the plaintiff contending that the Urban Redevelopment Law and the Pear Orchard Redevelopment plan proposed thereunder are unconstitutional for the reason that they provide for the taking of private property for a private use, and not for public purposes. Held:
History teaches us that one of the first steps necessary to be taken in the establishment of a totalitarian form of government is to abolish the right of private ownership of property. One of the most sacred and cherished rights of the citizens of this State, handed down to us by our forefathers, and until recently protected by the Constitution and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blankenship v. City of Decatur
...last cited case, the Constitution of the State of Georgia was amended and new legislation was upheld in Bailey v. Housing Authority of City of Bainbridge, 214 Ga. 790, 107 S.E.2d 812. The partinent part of § 23 of the Constitution 'That the exercise of the right of eminent domain shall neve......
-
Miller v. City of Tacoma
...Authority of City of Atlanta v. Johnson, 209 Ga. 560, 74 S.E.2d 891. This condition was referred to in Bailey v. Housing Authority of City of Bainbridge, 214 Ga. 790, 107 S.E.2d 812. The Constitution as thus amended allows the General Assembly to provide by law that any city or town or hous......
-
Bunker Hill Urban Renewal Project 1B of CommunityRedevelopment Agency of City of Los Angeles, In re
...its own decision in the Adams case and appears to have virtually overruled it. It also appears that in Bailey v. Housing Authority of City of Bainbridge (1959) 214 Ga. 790, 107 S.E.2d 812, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that an amendment to the Georgia Constitution eliminated the basis f......
-
Redevelopment Commission of Greensboro v. Security Nat. Bank of Greensboro, 604
...Authority of City of Atlanta v. Johnson, 1953, the State of Georgia amended its constitution, and in Bailey v. Housing Authority of City of Bainbridge, 1959, 214 Ga. 790, 107 S.E.2d 812, the Court held that the Urban Redevelopment Law of 1955 is expressly authorized by the constitutional am......
-
A Critical Review of Law of Business Loss Claims in Georgia Eminent Domain Jurisprudence - Charles M. Cork, Iii
...22. Id. 23. State Highway Dep't v. Branch, 222 Ga. 770, 772, 152 S.E.2d 372, 374 (1966). 24. See Bailey v. Housing Auth. of Bainbridge, 214 Ga. 790, 791-92, 107 S.E.2d 812, 813 (1959), quoted in McCord v. Housing Auth. of Atlanta, 246 Ga. 547, 550, 272 S.E.2d 247, 250 (1980). 25. See Whippl......
-
More Than Just a Plot of Land: Ohio's Rejection of Economic Development Takings
...38 Id. at 33. 39 Id . 40 Id. 41 Id. 42 SKOURAS, supra note 13, at 44. 43 Id. at 46. 44 See, e.g. , Bailey v. Hous. Auth. of Bainbridge, 107 S.E.2d 812, 814 (Ga. 1959); Hous. and Redevelopment Auth. of St. Paul v. Greenman, 96 N.W.2d 673, 680 (Minn. 1959). 84 CAPITAL UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [3......