Benjamin v. Housing Authority of Darlington County

• Decision Date: 18 July 1941
• Docket Number: 15299.
• Citation: 15 S.E.2d 737,198 S.C. 79
• Parties: BENJAMIN v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF DARLINGTON COUNTY et al.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

15 S.E.2d 737

198 S.C. 79

BENJAMIN v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF DARLINGTON COUNTY et al.

No. 15299.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

July 18, 1941

Robinson & Robinson, of Columbia, for plaintiff.

J P. Mozingo, III, of Darlington, and J. Bratton Davis, of Columbia, for defendants.

BONHAM Chief Justice.

This action, brought in the original jurisdiction of this Court by a taxpayer and property owner of Darlington County against the Housing Authority of that County and the County itself seeks to restrain the proposed action of the defendants in erecting in Darlington County rural homes for families of low income upon the ground that the proposed plan is without statutory authority and violates provisions of the State Constitution.

The answer raises no issue of fact, but the defendants deny the legal conclusions of the complaint.

This Court, in line with the decisions of the Courts of last resort in most of the States, held in McNulty v Owens, 188 S.C. 377, 199 S.E. 425, that the construction of dwellings by a public body for the purpose of eliminating slums and providing homes for families of low income in urban areas was a proper public purpose exempt from taxation under the provisions of Sections 1 and 4 of Article X of the State Constitution, and that the bonds issued by the Housing Authority did not constitute indebtedness within the meaning of Art. VIII, Section 7, or Art. X, Section 5 of the State Constitution.

Under a series of agreements which the Housing Authority of Darlington County has made with the United States Housing Authority, with Darlington County and with certain farm owners, it proposes to erect within the County not more than two hundred rural dwelling units at an average unit cost of $1,650. This construction is to be financed by the sale of bonds, ninety per cent of which are to be purchased by the United States Housing Authority and ten per cent by the public.

Each dwelling is being erected on a one acre plot of land conveyed at a nominal consideration to the County Authority by a farm owner who retains an option to repurchase the acre and the house at a "fair value." So long as this dwelling is owned by the Authority it is to be occupied by a tenant, sharecropper or farm wage hand (and in rare instances by the farm owner) selected by the adjacent farm owner who agrees to lease to the occupant sufficient adjacent land to permit the operation of a farm. The occupant must be the head of a family in the low income group. The farm owner agrees to pay to the Authority a small rental (estimated to average $70 a year) for the dwelling house and acre of land occupied by the farm owner's selectee.

The farm owner who sells to the Authority and who rents his adjacent property to the occupant of the Authority's house agrees to destroy one unsanitary dwelling unit on his farm or to use that unit for non-dwelling purposes. So long as the Authority owns this house and acre of land the farm owner agrees to use his adjacent property for farm purposes only and not to erect any dwelling unit thereon without the consent of the County Authority.

So long as this acre and dwelling unit are owned by the Authority, they are tax exempt.

The first question presented is whether this scheme of building houses in rural communities for the purpose of renting them to certain landowners, tenants, sharecroppers and wage hands in the low income brackets constitutes a public purpose.

As we held in McNulty v. Owens, supra, 188 S.C. 377, 383, 199 S.E. 425, the question of whether an Act is for a public purpose is primarily one for the Legislature. As pointed out in that decision, the General Assembly by passing the Limited Dividend Housing Act of 1933 (XXXVIII St. at Large, p. 176) and the Housing Authorities Act of 1935 (XXXIX St. at Large, p. 424), and by frequently amending the latter, has placed its stamp of approval upon public housing programs in this State.

Twice (Act No. 345 of 1935, 39 St. at Large, p. 500; Act No. 183 of 1937, 40 St. at Large, p. 267) the General Assembly has stated that the rural housing program as represented by Section 19 of the present statute is for a public purpose. The Congress of the United States by providing funds to purchase bonds of Rural Housing Authorities and to make annual contributions to them has indicated its view that rural housing is for a public purpose. The Legislative Delegation of Darlington County in adopting a resolution pursuant to Section 19 of the Housing Authorities Act has found that there is a need for an active Rural Authority in Darlington County.

These legislative findings to which we accord great weight because of the high regard we hold for a coordinate branch of the government are confirmed by surveys and public documents, of which this Court takes cognizance by agreement and consent of counsel.

The Congress, by enacting the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, LII Stat. 31, 7 U.S.C.A. § 1281 et seq., the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act, L Stat. 522, 7 U.S.C.A. §§ 1000-1029, the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, XLIX Stat. 1363, 7 U.S.C.A. §§ 901-914, and other legislation whose purpose and effect is to provide special benefits for farm families, has recognized the necessity for improving living conditions and income in rural areas.

In the light of these facts we conclude that the program of the Housing Authority of Darlington County as outlined herein is for a public purpose, both because it will eliminate unsanitary dwelling units and because it will provide sanitary homes and living conditions for farm families of low income. While necessarily the program...