Petition of Housing Authority of City of Seattle

Decision Date03 July 1963
Docket NumberNo. 36991,36991
Citation62 Wn.2d 492,383 P.2d 295
PartiesPetition of the HOUSING AUTHORITY OF the CITY OF SEATTLE to Acquire by Eminent Domain Lot 8, of Block 68, Terry's First Addition to Seattle, for the Purpose of the Housing Authority of the City of Seattle under RCW 35.82, and in Particular the Purpose of Providing Safe and Sanitary Accommodations for Persons of Low Income. Walter Scott BROWN and Helen M. Brown, husband and wife, Relators, v. The SUPERIOR COURT of the State of Washington FOR KING COUNTY, Edward E. Henry, Judge, Respondent.
CourtWashington Supreme Court

Hullin, Ehrlichman, Carroll & Roberts, Seattle, for relators.

LeSourd & Patten, F. A. LeSourd, Seattle, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

In this action to condemn certain property of the relators, the Housing Authority of the city of Seattle showed that it needed Lot 8, Block 68, adjacent to Yesler Terrace, an existing public housing project, for the erection of a proposed high-rise apartment building for the housing of elderly persons of low income, according to the trial court's findings. An order of public use and necessity was accordingly entered, and the relators applied for a writ of certiorari, contending that the findings were not supported by the evidence.

In enacting RCW 35.82.010, the legislature recognized the existence of unsafe and unsanitary dwelling facilities in this state, which are occupied by persons of low income who cannot afford decent housing. It declared inter alia:

'(3) * * * and the providing of safe and sanitary dwelling accommodations for persons of low income are public uses and purposes for which public money may be spent and private property acquired and are governmental functions of state concern; * * *.'

The relators do not question the correctness of this declaration; but they contend that the building of a new apartment house for the accommodation of elderly persons of low income is not necessary, and that it is not necessary to acquire their lot for the proposed building. We do not find it necessary to discuss the evidence at length. Suffice it to say that there was substantial evidence to support the trial court's findings that the Housing Authority reasonably determined that the project is necessary and that the land is necessary for the project.

The rule is that a determination by the proper municipal authorities that a necessity exists is conclusive, in the absence of actual fraud, or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • City of Bremerton v. Widell
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • June 6, 2002
    ... ... Housing Authority ...         Marya A. Gingrey, amicus curiae on behalf of Seattle Housing Authority ...         Michael J. Mirra and Eleanor ... those activities protected by that amendment: speech, assembly, petition for the redress of grievances, and the exercise of religion. Id. at 618, ... ...
  • Town of Medical Lake v. Brown
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • October 3, 1963
    ... ... in determining that the Town of Medical Lake has authority to acquire by condemnation, a site for a sewage lagoon ... ), we have many times held that the declaration of the city council in such cases is conclusive in the absence of fraud ... , 59 Wash.2d 586, 369 P.2d 503 (1962); In re Housing Authority, 162 Wash.Dec. 483, 383 P.2d 295 (1963); and In ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT