Keyes v. United States

• Decision Date: 10 March 1941
• Docket Number: No. 7743.,7743.
• Citation: 73 App. DC 273,119 F.2d 444
• Parties: KEYES v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

73 App. DC 273, 119 F.2d 444 (1941)

KEYES v. UNITED STATES.

No. 7743.

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

Argued January 9, 1941.

Decided March 10, 1941.

W. Gwynn Gardiner and James M. Earnest, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Alexander H. Bell, Jr., of Washington, D. C., for appellees.

Before GRONER, Chief Justice, and MILLER and VINSON, Associate Justices.

GRONER, C. J.

This is an action begun by the Attorney General of the United States at the instance of the Alley Dwelling Authority to condemn certain real estate in the District of Columbia for the construction of dwellings for families and persons of low income. Appellant, the owner of two parcels within the area to be condemned, objected on a number of grounds. The trial court found her return to the rule insufficient as a matter of law, and granted the prayer of the petition, as a result of which appellant was required to surrender possession of her land.¹ We allowed a special appeal.

In the argument here, appellant insists that her return contained meritorious defenses in the following respects: (1) The property cannot be condemned under the District of Columbia Alley Dwelling Act because it is neither in a square containing an inhabited alley nor necessary to provide accommodations for persons deprived of homes by the demolition of alley dwellings. (2) It cannot be condemned under any other housing laws because there is no showing either that it is unsanitary or unsafe or that the project includes the the demolition of a number of unsafe or unsanitary dwellings substantially equal to the dwellings to be constructed. (3) The legislative declaration on the unhealthfulness of alley dwellings upon which the validity of the law is said to depend, was based on a mistake or on facts which no longer exist. (4) The return contains denials which raise material issues of fact. (5) The Act is unconstitutional in that it authorizes the condemnation of private property for other than public uses.

We think there is no merit in these points.

In 1934 Congress enacted the "District of Columbia Alley Dwelling Act", 48 Stat. 930, for the purpose of abolishing all alley dwellings in the District by July 1, 1944. The power to acquire property by condemnation under this Act was limited to squares containing inhabited alleys. By executive order, the President appointed the members of the "Authority" to carry out the Act. The United States Housing Act of 1937, 50 Stat. 888, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1401 et seq., provided for subsidies and loans to local housing agencies, and in 1938 Congress amended the local act, partly to bring it in line with the national plan. 52 Stat. 1186. Title I of the amended act included the original provisions in revised form and authorized the acquisition not only of property in squares containing inhabited alleys but also of other property necessary to provide accommodations for persons deprived of homes by the demolition of alley dwellings. Title II, added by the amendment, provided in § 202 that: "In addition to its other powers, the Authority shall have the power to acquire sites for and to prepare, carry out, acquire, lease, and operate housing projects, as defined in section 201 of this title, and to construct or provide for the construction, reconstruction, improvement, alteration, or repair of any such housing project, or any part thereof, in the District of Columbia."

Section 201 referred to defined housing project to mean "any low-rent housing (as defined in the United States Housing Act of 1937), the development or administration of which is assisted by the United States Housing Authority". Acting under this provision, the Authority addressed to the Attorney General a communication stating that it had received from the United States Housing Authority a loan of funds for the development of a low-rent housing project, that funds were available for the acquisition of the property required to be condemned, requesting the institution of proceedings to acquire by condemnation the property of appellant, and stating "This acquisition is for the public use and purpose of effectuating the declared policy of Congress by providing dwellings for families and persons of low income in the District of Columbia".

We are of opinion that the quoted paragraph from Title II of the Act vested in the Authority power to condemn sites for low cost housing projects in addition to and wholly independent of the provisions of Title I of the Act to provide facilities to persons whose alley dwellings have been demolished. This view is fortified by the language of Section 203, which provides that the local Authority shall be an agency to carry out the purposes of the national housing Act, and the provisions of the national housing Act declare the policy of the United States to be to promote the general welfare by employing government money to remedy the acute shortage of decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings for families of low income in rural or urban communities injurious to the health, safety, and morals of the Nation. In this view, appellant's argument that Title I of the Act does not authorize the taking of her property, because the taking has no relation to the demolition of alley dwellings, is wholly beside the case. The resolution to take the land was specifically stated to be under Title II. The request to the Attorney General was likewise based on the provisions under that title, and the petition for condemnation declared and set out those provisions as the authority under which the proceeding was begun. And in Title II there is no requirement, as appellant contends, that the property to be acquired must itself be unsafe or unsanitary or that it can only be acquired in connection with a project which includes the demolition of unsafe or unsanitary dwellings. Of course, the two parts of the Act are related, and the elimination of slums, in the interest of public health and morals, is an important and vital part of the general plan. In fact, the Housing Act of 1937 requires the demolition of an equivalent number of unsafe or unsanitary dwellings as a condition to the grant of the subsidies under sections 10 and 11. This case, however, does not involve any of these subsidies. The acquisition of the property is to be made with the proceeds of a loan granted by the United States Housing Authority under section 9 of the Act, which imposes no such condition. The power to acquire property for housing projects in the District is not confined as contended. Cf. Housing Authority of Dallas v. Higginbotham, 135 Tex. 158, 143 S.W.2d 79, 89, 90, 130 A.L.R. 1053; Allydonn Realty Corp. v. Holyoke Housing Authority, 304 Mass. 288, 23 N.E.2d 665, 668, 669; Chapman v. Huntington Housing Authority, W. Va., 3 S.E.2d 502, 513.

Appellant's argument that she was entitled to show that alley dwellings are not, as declared, detrimental to public health and morals, comes too late in the history of this type of legislation, even if the point has, as we think it has not, any pertinence to a proceeding under Title II of the District Act. But even if it were otherwise, appellant's return sets forth only a conclusion that conditions with respect to the use of buildings in alleys as dwellings are not injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and public welfare. Something more is necessary to challenge the legislative declaration. The language of justice Brandeis in Pacific States Co. v. White, 296 U.S. 176, 185, 56 S.Ct. 159, 163, 80 L.Ed. 138, 101 A.L.R. 853, is pertinent: "When * * * legislative action `is called in question, if any state of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it, there is a presumption of the existence of that state of facts, and one who assails the classification must carry the burden of showing by a resort to common knowledge, or other matters which may be judicially noticed, or to other legitimate proof, that the action is arbitrary.' Borden's Farm Products Co. v. Baldwin, 293 U.S. 194, 209, 55 S.Ct. 187, 192, 79 L.Ed. 281. The burden is not sustained by making allegations which are merely the general conclusions of law or fact. * * * Facts relied upon to rebut the presumption of constitutionality must be specifically set forth. * *...