Chapman v. Huntington, W.Va., Housing Authority
| Decision Date | 13 June 1939 |
| Docket Number | C. C. No. 610. |
| Citation | 3 S.E.2d 502,121 W.Va. 319 |
| Parties | CHAPMAN v. HUNTINGTON, W.Va., HOUSING AUTHORITY et al. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Okey P. Keadle, of Huntington, for plaintiff.
Douglas C. Tomkies and Geo. I. Neal, both of Huntington, for defendants.
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 is necessary 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 preamble to the ordinance providing for slum clearance recites that there exists in the city a large number of unsafe and insanitary dwelling units.
8. That after the execution of the contributions and the slum-clearance contracts, the defendant authority negotiated two contracts with the United States Housing Authority. The first contract provides that the United States Housing Authority will make annual contributions over a period of sixty years of a specified amount based initially upon not more than three and one-half per centum annually of the estimated development cost, plus the margin of safety of one-ninth of the projects with the right of said authority to examine and re-examine the projects and withdraw its aid and contribution in the event of breach of contract.
The second contract, or loan contract, provides that the United States Housing Authority will loan to the defendant authority an amount equal to ninety per centum of the construction cost, being $2,311,200, the local authority to raise the remainder by bonds issued on the projects, which contract recites that the city had entered into binding agreements for equivalent elimination of existing units and twenty per centum contributions toward the maintenance of the projects.
9. That defendant authority, on December 12, 1938, advised the mayor and council by an updated letter of its proposal to construct five hundred dwelling units in the city at a cost of $2,568,000, in three separate projects as follows: (a) At Eighth Avenue, Seventeenth Street and Artisan Avenue, eighty units for occupancy by colored people; (b) on Doulton Avenue, Sixteenth Street and Charleston Avenue, one hundred, thirty-six units, for white people; and (c) on the north side of Olive Street, between St. Louis Avenue and Smith Street, two hundred, eighty-four units for white people.
10. That based on the development cost of $2,568,000, set forth in said letter, the federal annual contribution will be $89,880, and the city's twenty per centum, or $17,976, making a total of $107,856, or $215.71 per each unit.
11. That the following requirements were imposed by the defendant authority upon the occupancy of the proposed units under the requirements of the United States Housing Authority, namely: (a) Only such persons as are approved by the defendant Authority, or its agents, will be admitted as tenants; (b) only persons regularly and gainfully employed will be admitted; (c) persons earning less than $720 per annum, or more than $1,440 per annum, will not be admitted as tenants; (d) rentals to be charged by the defendant Authority will be not less than $4 per room per month, plus not less than $1.50 per month per room for utilities furnished, making rentals $19.25 per month to $33 per month, depending on the size of the unit.
12. That the City of Huntington, with a population of 75,572, is built over a large area in the Ohio Valley where there is available ample building room, so that dwellings, including those of moderate and low cost have been built on large size lots, and for that and other reasons "slum areas to the extent that have come to exist in other cities of equal or larger size," have not come to exist in the City of Huntington; that there are approximately twenty thousand dwelling units in the City of Huntington, including an ample supply of houses available to persons of the income class to which the units of defendant authority are restricted, equivalent to and producing rents equal to or less than those of the defendant authority's proposed units.
13. That the projects proposed to be constructed are not slum-clearance projects and are not intended as such for the following reasons: (a) That the entire amount of money available to the defendant Authority will be used for new construction, and no part thereof will be used for slum clearance; (b) that the site on Eighth Avenue where the eighty units for colored people will be built is not a slum area; (c) that the site on Doulton Avenue where the one hundred, thirty-six units for white people will be built consists largely of an old factory site, and is not a slum area; (d) that the site on Olive Street where the two hundred eighty-four units for white people will be built is in one of the best sections of the city devoted to moderate-priced homes, and is not a slum area; (e) that such houses as are on the first two of the said...
To continue reading
Request your trial