Schneider v. District of Columbia
| Decision Date | 05 November 1953 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 5791-52,476-53. |
| Citation | 117 F. Supp. 705 |
| Parties | SCHNEIDER v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. MORRIS v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REDEVELOPMENT LAND AGENCY et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
James C. Toomey, Toomey & Mehler, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff Morris.
Vernon E. West, Corp. Counsel, Oliver Gasch, J. H. Baumgartner, Jr., Asst. Corp. Counsel, Washington, D. C., for defendants District of Columbia and Com'rs. of District of Columbia.
Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., Ross O'Donoghue, Frank H. Strickler, Asst. U. S. Attys., Washington, D. C., for defendants Redevelopment Land Agency and National Capital Park & Planning Commission.
George F. Reisling, Gen. Counsel, Redevelopment Land Agency, Washington, D. C., William S. Cheatham, Gen. Counsel, National Capital Park & Planning Commission, Washington, D. C., of counsel for defendants.
Before PRETTYMAN, Circuit Judge, and KEECH, and CURRAN, District Judges.
These are two civil actions, consolidated, in which the constitutionality of the District of Columbia Redevelopment Act of 19451 is challenged. The defendant Government bodies and officials filed motions to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. Affidavits, with exhibits attached, were annexed to the motions. The plaintiffs filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
The plaintiffs are the owners of properties, one at 712 and the other at 716 Fourth Street, Southwest, both in the District of Columbia. One property is a department store owned and operated by the plaintiff Morris, and the other property is a retail hardware store owned and operated by the plaintiff Schneider. The defendants are the members of the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency, that Agency itself (a corporation), the members of the National Capital Park and Planning Commission (called in this statute the "Planning Commission"), the members of the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia, and the District of Columbia, a municipal corporation. The properties of the plaintiffs are located within the boundary lines of an area known in this litigation as "Project Area B".
This is the first project undertaken under the Redevelopment Act. The Planning Commission first published a Comprehensive Plan for the whole District of Columbia. Then it prepared a "Land Use Plan" for an area called the "Southwest Survey Area", which includes almost the whole of Southwest Washington. That plan, the Commission report says, "includes the Commission's proposals for the distribution of the basic land uses in the Survey Area, the population to be accommodated, the proportions of different housing types and the amount of low-rent housing which should be provided." The report recites as two of the principal proposals for the survey area:
The locations of other survey areas have been prepared by the Commission, one a Northwest Survey Area and one a Southeast Survey Area. Out of the Southwest Survey Area the Commission selected a part, to be known as Project Area B, for the first redevelopment project. This is what is now before us.
The proposal of the Commission was approved by the Board of Commissioners of the District of Columbia. Thereafter the Planning Commission adopted a redevelopment plan for the area. The Land Agency made a detailed survey, using techniques considered standard by public authorities. A total of 1345 dwelling units in 1006 structures in the area housed a population of 5012. The survey indicated that 57.8 per cent of the dwellings depended upon outside toilets, 60.3 per cent had no "baths", 82.2 per cent no wash basins or laundry tubs, 29.3 per cent no electricity, and 83.8 per cent no central heating. The survey indicated that 64.3 per cent of the dwellings in the area were beyond repair and 18.4 per cent needed some major repairs.
After a public hearing the Commissioners approved the proposed redevelopment plan, and the Planning Commission certified it to the Land Agency for execution. Having obtained the necessary funds for preliminary steps from the Federal Housing and Home Finance Administrator, the Land Agency advertised for proposals to negotiate for the purchase or lease of land in the project area. After due consideration the Agency accepted the proposals of five bidders who owned property in the area (Safeway Stores, Inc., Martin Wiegand, Inc., Eagle Transfer Company, Max Greenwald, and Rudderforth Brothers), each to repurchase its present property, and of the Bush Construction Company for the remainder of the area.
The boundary of the project area is a line beginning at South Capitol and Eye Streets, running west to Fourth Street, north on Fourth Street, around Lots 89 and 90 in Square 541; thence further north on Fourth Street, around Lot 70 in Square 497; thence west along H Street, around Lot 43 in Square 497; thence east along G Street back to Fourth Street to the rear of lots facing on Fourth Street; thence north 95.75 feet, east 3 feet, north 16 feet, east 25 feet, north 150 feet, west 25 feet, north 61.75 feet to the south line of F Street; thence east along F Street 25 feet, north 282 feet, around Lot 16 in Square 538; thence east along E Street to the property line of the P. B. and W. railroad; thence along that boundary to South Capitol Street and to the point of beginning. From this described boundary five lots owned by the trustees of the Friendship Baptist Church were eliminated.
In an affidavit the Director of Public Health for the District of Columbia characterizes Project Area B as a slum area "characterized particularly by the lack of those things which make for a good community." Attached to his affidavit are statistics of the Bureau of Vital Statistics of the District Health Department for Census Tract No. 60, within which Project Area B lies, being about one-half the residential-commercial area in the Tract. The figures for the year 1951 are:
Census Tract Entire District
No. 60 of Columbia
Death Rates Per 1000 Population 15.6 10.1
Death Rates from Tuberculosis Per
100,000 Population 83.7 35.5
Death Rates from Syphilis Per 100,000
Population 41.8 7.1
The redevelopment plan for Project Area B (a copy of which was attached as Appendix E to the affidavit of the Assistant Secretary of the Planning Commission) shows that the land use allocations designated in the plan are:
Per Cent
Residential 31.6
First Commercial 5.1
Second Commercial 6.7
Public Uses 15.3
Expressway 18.5
Streets 22.8
The plan provides for from 750 to 900 dwelling units, of which from 40 to 50 per cent are to be row houses and two-story flats and from 50 to 60 per cent are to be apartment houses. The maximum densities (that is, the number of dwelling units per net acre) are to be 25 row houses, 40 in two-story flats, and 43.5 in apartment houses. The need for accommodations is recited in the plan to be the following for different sizes of families: 30 per cent of the accommodations for families of two, 25 per cent for families of three, 20 per cent for families of four, 20 per cent for families of five, and 5 per cent for families of six or more. Accordingly it is provided that at least 60 per cent of the total dwelling units shall have two bedrooms or more and at least 20 per cent three bedrooms or more. The plan requires that not less than one-third of the dwelling units in the area shall be low-rent units, which means that the maximum rental shall be $17 per room per month, excluding utilities. The plan provides for off-street parking space and enclosed play space. It provides that the instruments of lease or sale shall include a condition that the use of the land in the area shall conform to the redevelopment plan.
The full texts of the pertinent sections of the Redevelopment Act are attached as an Appendix. They can be summarized. Congress declared it to be a matter of legislative determination that, owing to technological and sociological changes, obsolete layout, and other factors, conditions existing in the District of Columbia with respect to substandard housing and blighted areas are injurious to the public health, safety, morals and welfare. It declared that control by regulatory processes has proved inadequate and insufficient. It declared that in its judgment it is necessary to acquire property by gift, purchase, or the use of eminent domain to effectuate the discontinuance of the use for human habitation of substandard dwellings and of buildings in alleys of blighted areas, and that it is necessary to modernize the planning and development of such portions of the District. Procedure under the Act is divided between two governmental agencies. The Planning Commission is directed to make a general plan for the District of Columbia which will serve as a guide of development within which various project areas may be planned. That Commission is authorized to adopt boundaries for a "project area". Such an area is defined as an appropriate unit of redevelopment planning. "Redevelopment" is defined to mean replanning, clearance, redesign and rebuilding of project areas. "Substandard housing conditions" is defined to mean conditions obtaining in connection with the existence of housing accommodations for human beings which,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Miller v. City of Tacoma
...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 Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 75 S.Ct. 98, 99 L.Ed. 27.Florida: Grubstein v. Urban Renewal Agency of Ci......
-
Redevelopment Agency of City and County of San Francisco v. Hayes
...weight of authority. The latest cases on the subject are Kaskel v. Impellitteri, supra, 115 N.E.2d 659, and Schneider v. District of Columbia, D. C., 117 F.Supp. 705. 5 In the Kaskel case the validity of proceedings for redevelopment of the 'substandard or insanitary' Columbus Circle area i......
-
Alanel Corp. v. Indianapolis Redevelopment Commission
...upon a statement from Edens v. City of Columbia, 1956, 228 S.C. 563, 91 S.E.2d 280, at page 284, quoting from Schneider v. District of Columbia, D.C.1953, 117 F.Supp. 705, 720, as "One man's land cannot be seized by the Government and sold to another man merely in order that the purchaser m......
-
Gohld Realty Co. v. City of Hartford
...purpose not contemplated by the act. See Farist Steel Co. v. City of Bridgeport, 60 Conn. 278, 292, 22 A. 561; Schneider v. District of Columbia, D.C., 117 F.Supp. 705, 716. Such a possibility does not militate against the constitutionality of the act, which very clearly delimits the purpos......