Thomas v. Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Duluth

Decision Date25 May 1951
Docket NumberNo. 35444,35444
PartiesTHOMAS et al. v. HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF DULUTH et al.
CourtMinnesota Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court.

1. The fundamental purpose of the state in the enactment of the Municipal Housing and Redevelopment Act, being L.1947, c. 487, as amended by L.1949, c. 505, M.S.A. § 462.411 Et seq., is to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the public. The elimination of slums and the erection of safe and sanitary low-rent dwelling units for persons of the prescribed restrictive incomes referred to in the act will do a great deal to advance the public welfare and protect public safety and morals and will result in a direct benefit and advantage to all the people. The contemplated taking of property for low-rent housing under the facts and circumstances here, as provided in the act, constitutes a taking for public use, and the exercise of the power of eminent domain, as provided in the act, is not a violation of Minn.Const. art. 1, § 13.

2. Low-rent housing projects such as are contemplated under the facts and circumstances of the instant case constitute public uses or purposes within the meaning of Minn.Const. art. 9, § 1, and, as such, are exempt from taxation. The removal of property from the tax rolls to be used for public purposes, which may result in an increase in plaintiffs' taxes, does not constitute a taking a plaintiffs' property without due process of law in violation of Minn.Const. art. 1, § 7, and U.S.Const.Amend. XIV.

3. Section 462.411 Et seq., providing public housing for low-income families, does not violate Minn.Const. art. 1, § 2, or art. 4, § 33, as class legislation or special legislation.

4. It is not necessary that the title of an act be an index of the law. All that is necessary is that the act should not include legislation so composed of inharmonious elements that it could not, by any fair interpretation or intention, be considered germane to one general subject. Considering the title of the Municipal Housing and Redevelopment Act in its entirety, it does not violate Minn.Const. art. 4, § 27.

5. The determination by the commissioner of administration of 'net family income falling within the lowest 20 per cent by number of all family incomes in the area of operation,' as provided by § 462.491, is not the exercise of a legislative power, as the process would be purely ministerial in character. The legislature may confer upon a board or commission a discretionary power to ascertain, under and pursuant to the law, some fact or circumstance on which the law by its own terms makes or intends to make its own action depend. The legislature has prescribed in sufficient detail the standards for exercising power by the local housing authority to determine who may live in housing projects and the rentals to be charged so as to not unlawfully delegate such power to the housing authority. A municipality is only a department of the state. It is a political subdivision created as a convenient agency for the exercise of such governmental power as may be entrusted to it. It cannot be said under the facts and circumstances here that the city unlawfuly has delegated its legislative powers by agreeing to accept dedication of streets, sewers, etc.

6. It is our opinion that the language of the statute, considered in the light of the over-all purpose of the federal and state legislation contemplating public housing, means the entire project contemplated at the time the approval is sought, rather than a separate approval for each building constructed.

7. Assuming that the housing authority and the persons charged with the responsibility of giving priorities will be able to reconcile any conflicts which may arise, no purpose would be served by our passing judgment on such matters until an improper grant of priority has been first given.

Lewis, Hammer & Heaney and L. Dale MacIver, all of Duluth, for appellants.

Paul R. Hamerston, Duluth, for respondent, Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Duluth.

Harry Weinberg, City Atty., Runar C. Erickson, Asst. City Atty., Duluth, for respondent, City of Duluth.

J. A. A. Burnquist, Atty. Gen., Geo. B. Sjoselius, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondents.

Ben W. Palmer, Minneapolis, for Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Minneapolis, Ira Karon, St. Paul, for Housing and Redevelopment Authority of St. Paul, Howard Siegel, Eveleth, for Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Chisholm, and Hibbing, amici curiae.

FRANK T. GALLAGHER, Justice.

Appeal from a judgment of the district court.

Richard J. Thomas and Esther G. Thomas, his wife, instituted proceedings in the district court of St. Louis county to restrain the Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Duluth, Minnesota, and the city of Duluth from proceeding with a program of action intended to culminate in the establishment of a low-rent housing development at Duluth in conformity with federal and state law.

The facts, as stipulated between the parties, are undisputed. The issues raised by the pleadings are as to the law only, and particularly the constitutionality of the Municipal Housing and Redevelopment Act, being L.1947, c. 487, as amended by L.1949, c. 505, M.S.A. § 462.411 Et seq., referred to hereinafter as the act. The stipulated facts are substantially as follows:

Plaintiffs are citizens, residents, taxpayers, and owners of real estate in Duluth. The Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Duluth, referred to hereinafter as the Authority, is a public body corporate and politic created pursuant to M.S.A. § 462.425. On August 22, 1949, the Authority applied to the Public Housing Administration, a federally owned corporation (hereinafter referred to as the PHA), for a preliminary loan under the provisions of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1401 Et seq., referred to hereinafter as the federal act, in the amount of $150,000, to be used for the purpose of preliminary surveys in the planning of a proposed low-rent housing project or projects in the city of Duluth consisting of 500 dwelling units. The application was approved by a resolution of the city council on August 29, 1949. Thereafter, the Authority entered into a preliminary loan contract with the PHA, pursuant to which contract the PHA advanced $14,000 to the Authority, evidenced by a note executed by the Authority and payable to the PHA. On April 10, 1950, the Authority and the city of Duluth entered into a cooperation agreement, made a part of the stipulated statement of facts, which provides in part:

'Now, Therefore, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, the Local Authority and the City do agree:

'2. The Local Authority shall endeavor to secure a contract or contracts with the PHA for loans and annual contributions, and undertake to develop and administer one or more Projects.

'3. Under the constitution and statutes of the State of Minnesota, all Projects are exempt from all real and personal property taxes and special assessments levied or imposed by any Taxing Body; and, with respect to any Project, so long as either (a) any contract between the Local Authority and the PHA for loans or annual contributions, or both, in connection with such Project shall remain in force and effect, or (b) any bonds issued in connection with such Project shall remain outstanding, whichever period is the longer, the City agrees that it will not levy or impose any real or personal property taxes or special assessments upon such Project or upon the Local Authority with respect thereto. During such period, the Local Authority shall make annual payments (herein called 'Payments in Lieu of Taxes') in lieu of taxes and special assessments, except insofar as payment of special assessments may be governed by Section 6, Subdivisions (b) and (c) hereof, and in payment for public service and facilities furnished for or with respect to such Project. Each such annual Payment in Lieu of Taxes shall be made at the time when real property taxes on such Project would be paid if it were subject to taxation, and shall be in an amount equal to ten per cent (10%) of the aggregate Shelter Rent charged by the Local Authority in respect to such Project during the tax year for which such payment is made; provided, however, that upon failure of the Local Authority to make any such Payment in Lieu of Taxes, no lien against any Project or assets of the Local Authority shall attach.

'The payments in lieu of taxes shall be collected and distributed in accordance with Section 34, Subdivision 3 of the Minnesota Municipal Housing and Redevelopment Act, as amended (together with any amendments thereto enacted after the date of this Agreement); provided, however, that no payment for any year shall be made to any Taxing Body (including the City) in excess of the amount of the real property taxes which would have been paid to such Taxing Body for such year if the Project were not exempt from taxation.

'4. The City agrees that, subsequent to the date of initiation (as defined in the Act) of each Project and within five years after the completion thereof, or such further period as may be approved by the PHA, there has been or will be elimination (as approved by the PHA) by demolition, condemnation, effective closing, or compulsory repair or improvement, of unsafe or insanitary dwelling units situated in the locality or metropolitan area of the City substantially equal in number to the number of newly constructed dwelling units provided by such Project; provided, that, where more than one family is living in an unsafe or insanitary dwelling unit, the elimination of such unit shall count as the elimination of units equal to the number of families accommodated therein; and provided, further, that this paragraph 4 shall not apply in the case of (a) any Project developed on the site of a Slum cleared subsequent to July 15, 1949, and that the dwelling...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Minnesota Energy and Economic Development Authority v. Printy
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
    • May 11, 1984
    ...175, 188-91, 25 N.W.2d 718, 727-28 (1947)), a local housing and redevelopment authority ( Thomas v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority of Duluth, 234 Minn. 221, 247-50, 48 N.W.2d 175, 192 (1951)), a seaway port authority ( Visina v. Freeman, 252 Minn. 177, 199-200, 89 N.W.2d 635, 652-53 (195......
  • Foeller v. Housing Authority of Portland
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • April 29, 1953
    ...S.W.2d 651; Lennox v. Housing Authority of City of Omaha, 137 Neb. 582, 290 N.W. 451, 291 N.W. 100; Thomas v. Housing and Redevelopment Authority of Duluth, 234 Minn. 221, 48 N.W.2d 175; and Belovsky v. Redevelopment Authority, supra. The first assignment of error is without The following i......
  • Ferch v. Housing Authority of Cass County
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • July 22, 1953
    ...is not sufficient to constitute a public use. That case, however, is distinguished in the later case of Thomas v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority, 234 Minn. 221, 48 N.W.2d 175, 178, where it is pointed out that the use of the project in the cited case was mainly for private purposes. In t......
  • People ex rel. Gutknecht v. City of Chicago
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • March 23, 1953
    ...in their stead decent habitations 'for persons heretofore compelled to live under slum conditions.' See, e. g., Thomas v. Housing & Redevelopment Authority, 234 Minn. 221, 48 N.E.2d 175, 184; Dornan v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, 331 Pa. 209, 200 A. 834, 842. In the latter case the Penn......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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