Randolph v. Wilmington Housing Authority
Decision Date | 12 March 1958 |
Citation | 139 A.2d 476,37 Del.Ch. 202 |
Parties | Mary A. RANDOLPH, Plaintiff, v. WILMINGTON HOUSING AUTHORITY, a body corporate and politic of the State of Delaware, and The Mayor and Council of Wilmington, a municipal corporation of the State of Delaware, Defendants. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Delaware |
Robert B. Walls, Jr., Wilmington, for plaintiff.
Thomas Herlihy, Jr. and Morris Cohen, Wilmington, for defendant Wilmington Housing Authority.
Stewart Lynch, City Sol. (of Hastings, Lynch & Taylor), Wilmington, for defendant Mayor and Council of Wilmington.
The Vice Chancellor has certified to us for answer questions touching the constitutionality of the Slum Clearance and Redevelopment Act of 1951, 31 Del.C. Ch. 45, §§ 4501-4503, and certain other related questions.
The act provides for the creation in each county and municipality of the State, with the approval of the governing body of the community, of a 'Slum Clearance and Redevelopment Authority.' § 4503.
The general purpose of the act is to provide for a program of slum clearance and urban redevelopment. To this end the Authority is empowered (§ 4516) to acquire title by purchase or condemnation to real property within any specified area in the community declared by the governing body to be a 'slum area' or 'blighted area' (as those terms are defined in § 4501 of the act), and to exercise the power of eminent domain for the purpose (§ 4528); to prepare and submit for approval a plan of redevelopment of that area, which shall include certain specified data (§ 4520); and to sell, lease, exchange or otherwise transfer any such real property to a redeveloper, subject to such conditions as may be appropriate to prevent the recurrence of a slum or blighted area (§ 4527).
The act contains detailed provisions respecting the content of any plan of redevelopment; the findings that form the basis of the plan; the public hearing on the plan; the financing of the cost of the plan by grants or loans from the governing body and from the federal government; and, in general, the procedure to be followed in the preparation, approval and execution of the plan. Power is expressly conferred on the governing bodies to levy taxes and appropriate money for the purposes of the act (§§ 4536-4537). Such provisions as are especially pertinent to the questions presented will be hereafter set forth.
The agreed facts are as follows:
In 1951 the Wilmington Housing Authority (theretofore created) was designated as the Slum Clearance and Redevelopment Authority for the City of Wilmington.
By a series of resolutions of the Council of Wilmington, of the Authority, and of the Wilmington Planning Commission, adopted in 1955 and 1956, there has been approved a plan for the acquisition and redevelopment by the Authority of a certain area in Wilmington, sometimes called 'Poplar Street Project A'. The area contains 38.2 acres of land and includes 21 1/2 city blocks in Wilmington lying east of the main business section. It contains some 638 structures, of which 606 are residential structures containing 970 dwelling units. School buildings and churches, and a settlement building, are excluded from the project.
In some of the resolutions of the Authority and of City Council this area is found and declared to be a 'slum area', and in others to be a 'slum and blighted area'.
The statute defines a slum area as follows:
"Slum area' means an area in which there is a predominance of buildings or improvements (or which is predominantly residential in character), and which, by reason of dilapidation, deterioration, age or obsolescence, inadequate provision for ventilation, light, air, sanitation, or open spaces, high density of population and overcrowding, or the existence of conditions which endanger life or property by fire and other causes, or any combination of such factors, is conducive to ill health, transmission of disease, infant mortality, juvenile delinquency and crime, and is detrimental to the public health, safety, morals or welfare.' 31 Del.C. § 4501.
The data assembled from surveys of the area fully support the finding that the area is a 'slum area'. Of the structures in the area 97 per cent showed dilapidation or deterioration; 55 per cent have sub-standard alterations; 99 per cent have inadequate original construction; 97 per cent are improperly maintained; and 77.3 per cent have violations of the Fire Code. The proportion of persons in the area receiving public assistance is much higher than the proportion applicable to the rest of the city. Arrests for assault and disorderly conduct are proportionally much higher in the area than elsewhere. There are other findings that it is unnecessary to review in detail.
The plan provides:
1. The Authority will acquire, by purchase, condemnation, or otherwise, all the land in the area, except that excluded.
2. A plan of relocation of residents who will be dispossessed is attached, as required by the statutes.
3. The structures upon the land so acquired wil be demolished and the land will be sold to the redeveloper at its then fair value. The area will then be redeveloped by private contractors in accordance with a prescribed site plan. The redevelopment will be subject to specified controls and restrictions designed to assure the completion of the redevelopment in accordance with the site plan and the uses and limitations specified in the plan of redevelopment.
4. Certain existing streets will be vacated and others laid out; and equipment for necessary additional utility services will be provided.
5. The estimated cost of the project is about $3,000,000, of which about $1,000,000 will be appropriated by the Council of Wilmington and the remainder by the federal government through a grant-in-aid under the federal housing acts.
Plaintiff's property is within the area. It is admitted that her building is not substandard, and is a safe and sound structure.
After the approval of the plan the City of Wilmington on January 24, 1957, entered into a contract with the Authority. The City has agreed to make a grant-in-aid of $1,000,000 toward the cost of the project. A temporary loan of $150,170 was made on January 27.
On June 13, 1957, the Authority entered into a contract with the Federal Housing Home and Finance Agency providing for the financing by that agency of approximately two-thirds of the cost of the project. On June 21 a temporary loan of $150,170 was made by the Agency.
On July 25, 1957, the Wilmington City Council adopted a resolution attempting to rescind the prior approval of the project and (by implication) its agreement with the Authority. The resolution recites that the agreement 'should be invalid by reason of not having been negotiated by means which constitute due process of law.'
Plaintiff's complaint in the court below, after reciting the facts, alleges that the Slum Clearance and Redevelopment Act and all proceedings taken thereunder are unconstitutional or illegal on various grounds. She prays for an injunction against further expenditure of public funds for the project and for an injunction to prevent the Authority from filing eminent domain proceedings against the plaintiff.
The defendants admitted the facts, and all parties moved for summary judgment.
Upon this record the court below has certified to us fifteen questions of law. These may readily be classified into seven groups raising seven points.
The first group of certified questions, (a) to (g), inclusive, is as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Blankenship v. City of Decatur
... ... judgment and an injunction against appellees, City of Decatur and Housing Authority of the City of Decatur, enjoining the appellees ... from ... v. City of Hartford, 141 Conn. 135, 104 A.2d 365; Randolph v. Wilmington Housing ... Authority, Del., 139 A.2d 476; Alanel Corp. v ... ...
-
Davis v. City of Lubbock
...118 Tex. 207, 13 S.W.2d 353.28 Gohld Realty Co. v. City of Hartford, 1954, 141 Conn. 135, 104 A.2d 365; Randolph v. Wilmington Housing Authority, Del.1958, 139 A.2d 476, at page 484; State ex rel. Bruestle v. Rich, 1953, 159 Ohio St. 13, 110 N.E.2d 778; Land Clearance for Redevelopment Auth......
-
Miller v. City of Tacoma
...P.2d 114 (1961).Connecticut: Gohld Realty Co. v. Hartford, 141 Conn. 135, 104 A.2d 365 (1954).Delaware: Randolph v. Wilmington Housing Authority, 37 Del.Ch. 202, 139 A.2d 476 (1958).District of Columbia: Schneider v. District of Columbia, 117 F.Supp. 705 (D.C.1953), affirmed as modified by ......
-
Bunker Hill Urban Renewal Project 1B of CommunityRedevelopment Agency of City of Los Angeles, In re
...of his own land is required to pay his pro rata share. Thus no unfair discrimination is shown. (See Randolph v. Wilmington Housing Authority (Del., 1958) 139 A.2d 476, 486 8. ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF FINAL PLAN The trial court found and concluded that substantial evidence and the relevant la......