Chapman v. Huntington

• Decision Date: 13 June 1939
• Docket Number: C. C. No. 610.
• Citation: 3 S.E.2d 502
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: CHAPMAN. v. HUNTINGTON, W. Va., HOUSING AUTHORITY et al.

3 S.E.2d 502

CHAPMAN.

v. HUNTINGTON, W. Va., HOUSING AUTHORITY et al.

C. C. No. 610.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

June 13, 1939.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The West Virginia Housing Act (Chapter 93, Acts West Virginia Legislature, 2d Ex.Sess.1933), read in conjunction with the United States Housing Act of 1937 (September 1, 1937, c. 896, 50 U.S.Stat. 888, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1401 et seq.), does not deprive property owners of their property without compensation and without due process of law in violation of West Virginia Constitution, Art. Ill, Sections 9 and 10 and the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, U.S.C.A.

2. The West Virginia Housing Act has as its primary purpose slum clearance and incidentally and auxiliary thereto, low-cost housing.

3. Slum clearance and low-cost housing incidental thereto, under the provisions of the West Virginia Housing Act, are within the police power of the legislature and are for a public purpose.

4. The factual finding of a city council to the effect that slum areas exist within the city is entitled to great respect and is not subject to attack unless clearly wrong.

5. In a bill of complaint for an injunction to restrain slum clearance and low-cost housing projects, the allegations denying the existence of slum areas, in the face of an ordinance of the city finding contrariwise, must be clear, unequivocal and based on sound reasons.

6. The West Virginia Housing Act and United States Housing Act of 1937 do not require that low-cost housing provided for therein shall be constructed on the same ground where slum units have been cleared.

7. The West Virginia Housing Act, construed with the United States Housing Act of 1937, does not provide for an illegal delegation of legislative powers to an administrative body in contravention of the West Virginia Constitution, Articles V and VI.

8. The delegation by the legislature of broad discretionary powers to an administrative body, accompanied by fitting standards for their exercise, is not of itself unconstitutional.

9. The United States Housing Act of 1937 is supplementary to the National Industrial Recovery Act (June 16, 1933, c. 90, Title 2, sec. 201 et seq., 48 U.S.Stat. 200, 40 U.S.C.A. § 401 et seq.), within the meaning of the West Virginia Housing Act, and should be considered in the construction of the last mentioned act.

10. The West Virginia Housing Act does not authorize housing projects apart from slum clearance and is not invalid because it does not require that public hearings be had on the advisability of any proposed project.

11. The City of Huntington has statutory power, under its charter (Chapter 161, Acts West Virginia Legislature, 2d Ex.Sess. 1933) and the West Virginia Housing Act to enter into contracts providing for slum clearance and low-cost housing, providedsaid contracts contain no invalidating provisions.

12. A city's contracts with a housing authority requiring no expenditure of money do not violate either section 26 of chapter 67, Acts 2d Ex.Sess.1933 (superseding article 8 of chapter 11, Code 1931), or West Virginia Constitution, Art. X, Section 8.

13. Slum clearance and low-cost housing development, under the West Virginia Housing Act, do not deprive any person of the equal protection of the laws contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

14. Low-cost housing units constructed under the provisions of the West Virginia Housing Act are public property within the meaning of West Virginia Constitution, Art. X, Section 1, and are properly exempted from taxation under Section 14 of the West Virginia Housing Act.

15. It is beyond the province of this Court to pass upon the feasibility or practicability of slum clearance and low-cost housing projects, constructed under the provisions of the West Virginia Housing Act, where there exists ground for a difference of opinion in regard thereto.

HATCHER and MAXWELL, JJ., dissenting.

Certified from Circuit Court, Cabell County.

Suit by J. Paul Chapman, a citizen and resident taxpayer of the city of Huntington, W. Va., against the Hunting, W. Va., Housing Authority and others to enjoin the defendants from proceeding further with certain realty developments in the city of Huntington, W. Va., from acquiring land for that purpose and entering into any contract or contracts for the development, from obtaining any loans or contributions for such purpose from the United States Housing Authority, from performing agreements contained in certain contracts, and to enjoin the removal of the property of the named defendant from the tax books of the county. A demurrer to the complaint was sustained, and the sufficiency of the pleading is certified to the Supreme Court of Appeals for decision.

Affirmed.

Okey P. Keadle, of Huntington, for plaintiff.

Douglas C. Tomkies and Geo. I. Neal, both of Huntington, for defendants.

RILEY, Judge.

The plaintiff, J. Paul Chapman, a citizen, resident and taxpayer of the defendant city of Huntington, seeks an injunction enjoining the defendant, the Huntington, West Virginia, Housing Authority, a corporation, and its commissioners from proceeding further with certain real estate developments in the City of Huntington; from acquiring land for that purpose and entering into any contract or contracts for said development and from obtaining from the United States Housing Authority any loans or contributions for said purpose; enjoining the defendant, the City of Huntington, and its officers from performing the agreements contained in two certain contracts entered into between the city and the defendant authority; and enjoining the defendant Martin, assessor of Cabell County, from removing the property of the Huntington, West Virginia, Housing Authority from the tax books of his county. A demurrer to the amended bill of complaint having been sustained, the sufficiency of the pleading has been certified to this Court for decision.

The amended bill of complaint alleges:

1. That plaintiff is a citizen, resident and taxpayer of the City of Huntington, owning taxable improved real estate similar in size to the units to be constructed by the defendant authority and renting for approximately the same rents to be charged by the authority for its units.

2. That the defendant, the Huntington, West Virginia, Housing Authority, is a statutory corporation, created under the provisions of Chapter 93 of the Acts of the West Virginia Legislature, 2d Ex.Sess. 1933 (West Virginia Housing Act) with commissioners constituting said authority as named in the bill of complaint; that the defendant, the City of Huntington, is a municipal corporation with mayor and councilmen as named in said bill, and that defendant Martin is the assessor of Cabell County.

3. That the mayor of the City of Huntington appointed the defendant commissioners of the defendant authority pursuant to a direction of the council of said city in a resolution passed January 24, 1938, and exhibited to the bill, which reads in part as follows: "Therefore Be It Resolved, that the Council of said city do hereby find and determine that sub-standard conditions do exist in this city, that it isnecessary in the public interest that they be corrected, and that there is need in the City of Huntington for the creation of a public housing authority to engage in a low-cost housing and slum clearance program."

4. That the commissioners organized the defendant authority and with utmost secrecy, and, without notice or opportunity to any interested citizens or taxpayers to be heard, set about to create housing authority developments of which the details were not disclosed until December 12, 1938.

5. That complainant is not advised as to what investigation was made by the defendant authority of the need for additional housing facilities in the City of Huntington, and no hearing was had, and though an interested group of citizens requested an opportunity to make representations regarding such need, the request was refused.

6. That defendant authority entered into negotiations with the United States Housing Authority for the loan of funds or a subsidy of public funds for the support of its proposed development, and annual contributions by the city by tax exemptions or otherwise equal to twenty per centum of the annual contributions by the United States Housing Authority, pursuant to the provisions of the United States Housing Act of

1937. September 1, 1937, c. 896, 50 U.S. Stat. 888, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1401 et seq.

7. That to comply with the provisions of the United States Housing Act, two contracts, by authority of two ordinances passed by the city council on July 11,

1938, were entered into between the authority and the city as follows:

(a) The first contract (hereinafter spoken of as city's contributions contract) binds and obligates the city for the term of not less than sixty years, (1) not to levy, impose, or charge against the authority or its property, any taxes, special assessments, service fees, charges, or tolls, (2) to furnish to and for the project, and all tenants thereof, all municipal services and facilities furnished by it to the other inhabitants and taxpayers of the city, (3) to maintain in good repair and working order any and all municipal utilities and facilities provided by it for the use of the project and the tenants thereof, and (4) to maintain in good repair streets, roads and alleys adjoining to or within the boundaries of the projects and used by the public; and the contract then provides that it might be assigned, along with the city's obligations therein contained, as security for any bonds issued •by the defendant Authority to raise funds with which to construct the proposed project.

(b) The second contract (hereinafter spoken of as city's slum-clearance contract) binds and obligates the city to eliminate within twelve months after the completion of the development, one dwelling unit for each unit constructed by the defendant Authority.

The...