In re Kansas City Ordinance No.39946
Citation | 252 S.W. 404,298 Mo. 569 |
Decision Date | 28 April 1923 |
Docket Number | No. 23371.,23371. |
Parties | In re KANSAS CITY ORDINANCE NO. 39946. KANSAS CITY v. LIEBI et al |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Missouri |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Allen C. Southern, Judge.
Proceeding in behalf of property owners of Kansas City against Fred Liebi and others to restrict the purposes for which certain property along a boulevard may be used and to condemn certain rights in such property. From a judgment of dismissal, the city appeals. Reversed and remanded.
E. M. Harber, City Counselor, of Excelsior Springs, and Benj. M. Powers, Asst. City Counselor, and W. C. Scarritt, Sp. Counsel, both of Kansas City, for appellant.
A. N. Gossett, of Kansas City, for respondent Small.
John G. Park, of Kansas City, for respondent Liebi.
Smart & Strother, of Kansas City, for respondent, Smart.
This is a proceeding to restrict the use and to condemn certain rights in property along Gladstone boulevard, in Kansas City, under Ordinance No. 39946, called a "protective ordinance." Owners of certain property abutting on Gladstone boulevard and within a benefit district were made defendants. Five defendants appeared and filed separate motions to dismiss the proceeding. The motions of two of these, Fred Liebi and T. A. Smart, with a supplemental motion of Smart, are set out in the record. The other motions are not in the record. All the motions to dismiss were sustained December 15, 1921, and the cause dismissed, and the plaintiff appealed.
In addition to the defendants who moved to dismiss, 46 defendants appeared and filed their joint answer, expressing their satisfaction with the proceeding and praying the court to carry it into effect.
Section 2 of the ordinance is as follows:
Section 3 provides for a benefit district comprising all lands on either side of Gladstone boulevard, between Independence boulevard and Wheeling avenue, lying within 150 feet of the respective side lines of said boulevard, and provides certain methods of measurement for laying out the lines.
Section 4 provides for a condemnation proceeding to determine the damage, if any, which the several property owners within the said benefit district might sustain by reason of the enactment and enforcement of the ordinance, and the manner in which the proceedings should be prosecuted.
Section 5 of the ordinance provides that damage caused by the enforcement of the ordinance should be paid for by special assessment upon real property situated within the benefit district.
Section 6 recites that the common council shall prescribe the terms and describe the limits within which property shall be benefited by this ordinance and assessed to pay the damages.
Section 7 provides that within a period of 20 years the ordinance could be repealed only upon petition of a majority of the owners of private property abutting upon the boulevard and within the benefit district.
The motions to dismiss allege numerous grounds why the proceeding should not be maintained. These may be classified in general as:
(1) Those which questioned the constitutionality of the ordinance and the proceeding.
It is claimed that the ordinance and the proceeding are contrary to article 2, § 20, 21, and 30 of the Constitution of Missouri, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The briefs and arguments of the respondent upon this point mainly go to the provision of section 20, article 2, that no private property can be taken for private use, except for certain given purposes, and the provision of section 21, that property shall not be taken nor damaged for public use without just compensation.
(2) Those which asserted reasons why the proceeding is not authorized by the charter of Kansas City. Several questions are presented in considering the charter power of the city, which will be noticed later in the opinion.
On the hearing of the motion the movers introduced evidence to show that some of the buildings upon the boulevard were much nearer than the 35 feet. Section 2 does not require buildings already on the property to be moved, but prohibits any building to be constructed within less than 35 feet of the nearest side line, after the enactment of the ordinance. A petition signed by 107 persons interested in the development of Gladstone boulevard, urging the immediate passage of the ordinance, and suggesting certain changes in it, was offered by the defendants, to show that the petition was not in accordance with the provisions of the charter. It was shown that no other petition was an file in the office of the city clerk having reference to the subject-matter of the ordinance.
The city offered as witnesses a number of persons who owned property on Gladstone boulevard, as well as real estate men, to show that the erection of structures forbidden by the ordinance would injure the boulevard for residences. Several witnesses testified that the value of property on the bouleyard would be greatly appreciated by enforcement of the ordinance; that because of benefits arising from the scheme the enhanced value of the property affected would be much more than the damages to property owners. Mr. George E. Kessler, landscape architect, gave his idea of zoning in a city:
It was shown that Gladstone boulevard was essentially a residence district, and values along the boulevard were based on the use of the land for dwellings; that use for any other purpose would have a tendency to destroy values. It was said that establishment there of business enterprises would immediately reduce its values for residence purposes, including a very large area immediately adjoining the property on which such business might be placed. The purpose was thus expressed:
All this evidence was introduced without objection, generally being the opinions of real estate experts and of experts upon city planning. The trend of the evidence was that the planning of the city in relation to the use of different parts would tend to prevent overcrowded and congested districts, thereby promoting health and the general welfare of the city, would make the city more attractive and thereby promote its growth and general prosperity, and afford means of recreation to people who desired to drive or walk along such streets in the same way that a public park or playground would.
I. The propriety, expediency, and necessity of a legislative act are purely for the determination of the legislative authority, and are not for determination by the courts. That applies to a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kelo v. City of New London
...public park and would be used by city for public park, court determined that condemnation was for public use); Kansas City v. Liebi, 298 Mo. 569, 591, 593, 252 S.W. 404 (1923) (evidence established that protective ordinance restricting use of and condemning rights to property would prevent ......
-
Aufderheide v. Polar Wave Ice & Fuel Co.
...property is involved. The sum involved is in excess of $7500. St. Louis v. Hill, 116 Mo. 527; St. Louis v. Dorr, 145 Mo. 485; Kansas City v. Liebi, 298 Mo. 569; State ex rel. v. McKelvey, 301 Mo. 1; State ex rel. Land Co. v. Buckner, 288 Mo. 618; State ex rel. v. Rambauer, 124 Mo. 598; Rail......
-
Turner v. Kansas City
...Inv. Co. v. Kansas City, 321 Mo. 969, 13 S.W. (2d) 628; Ex parte Williams, 139 S.W. (2d) 485, 354 Mo. 1111; In re Kansas City Ordinance No. 39946, 298 Mo. 569, 252 S.W. 404; St. Louis v. Hellscher, 295 Mo. 293, 242 S.W. 652; Mitchell v. City of Birmingham, 133 So. 13; Davis v. State, 160 N.......
-
City of Clayton v. Nemours
...v. Behr, 77 Mo. 91. (12) State ex rel. v. McKelvey, 256 S.W. 474; City v. Hill, 116 Mo. 527. (13) City v. Hill, 116 Mo. 527; City v. Liebi, 252 S.W. 404. (14) The term "street" has a definite and well-recognized meaning in law. A "street" is a road or public way in a city, town or village, ......
-
Accommodating Change: Departures From (and Within) the Zoning Ordinance
...upon use of property by means of eminent domain, see Attorney General v. Williams, 174 Mass. 476, 55 N.E. 77 (1899); Kansas City v. Liebi, 298 Mo. 569, 252 S.W. 404 (1923). Page 264 Land Use Planning and the Environment: A Casebook for almost every parcel of land. Since the city could not a......