Evening star., 1953-11-06
Officials Hail
Court Action
For Project B
See RedeveIopment
Speedup; New
Legal Fights Possible

which will free the way Tor
speedy action on the city'S pilot
Southwest redevelopment prof.
ect.
John R. Searles, jr., Redevel-
opment Land Agency director,
said his agency may act next
week to buy the, first parcels of
land in the 76-acre project B
area. Machinery for taking title
to the land by condemnation is
not quite ready for use. he said.
Prospects of a further court
fight on the program, however,
were raised by lawyers for two
area B business property owners,
who lost their battle on the con-
stitutional issues.
Other Legal Action Possible.
The possibility of further legal
action-not against the act Of
Congress but against the way
the act is being carried out
was suggested first by the three
Judge Federal tribunal in its
ruling yesterday.
The jurists asserted that the
suits before it challenged only
the constitutionality of a 1945
act under which the program is
being conducted. Since the act
was judged to be constitutional,
the suits were dismissed. But
the judges noted that in court
arguments the attorneys had re-
ferred to arbitrary and capri
cious' action by the National
Capital Planning Commission in
fixing boundaries of the B area
to include the business prop
critics of their clients while eX-
cluding other business properties
on the same street.
If the suits were amended to
include complaints that the
planners acted beyond the scope
of the statute" the case should
be heard by a single Federal
Judge, the ruling said.
Probably Will Act.
Attorneys for Mrs. Goldie
Schneider. owner of a hardware
store at TIC Fourth street S.W.
and Max R. Morris, owner ot a
department store at 712 Fourth
street S.W., said they "probativ
will follow the suggestion made
In the (three-judge court)
opinion I"
Joseph H. Schneider. acting
as attorney for his mother, said
a final decision would be made
during the week end, after he
confers with James C. Toomey
Mr.. Morris lawyer.
Redevelopment Land Agency
officials intend to take title to
all property in the slum ridden
76-acre area bounded by Penn
sylvania Railroad tracks and
Fourth, I and South Capitol
streets. After acquiring it, the
agency wants to demolish nearly
all structures, and sell the land
to the Bush Construction Co.. OF
Norfolk, which must rebuild the
area in compliance with a plan
drawn up by the Planning Com
mission and approved by the
District Commissioners.
Court Cites Authority.
While upholding constitution
ality of the 1945 act, meanwhile.
the three-judge court held in
strong terms that Congress did
not confer powers to seize prop
erty beyond the reasonable
necessities of slum clearance
and prevention, the word 'slum'
meaning conditions injurious to
the public health, safety, morals
and welfare
In their 38-page ruling, the
jurists emphasized that admin
istrative agencies must act
within this restriction. They
took strong issue with any con-
tentions that private land could
be seized solely for other pur-
poses.
The juriSts said the key to
the B area plan, apart from
slum clearance, ''is the opinion
of the Government authorities
that residential neighborhoods
should be 'well-balanced' and
that the area should contain
housing for all income groups"
They said such plans are "at-
tractive" and would be most
laudable" if undertaken pri-
vately.
But as yet the courts have
not come to call such pleasant
accomplishments a public pur-
pose which validates Government
seizure of private property" they
added. THE claim of Govern
ment power for such purposes
runs squarely into the right of
the individual to own property
and to use it as he pleases."
Area Unhealthy.
Mr.. Searles said, in a state
ment, the land agency feels the
Project B plan ''is clearly a slum
elimination plan. as the area
has been established as one of
the most unhealthy and dilapi-
dated in the Nations Capital"
He said the land agency feels
the ruling should ''free the way
for slum clearance and slum pre-
vention as authorized by the
act and in line with the interpre-
tation given by the court"
The two Southwest property
owners had contended the act
die not apply to commercial
properties. that it unconstitu-
tionally authorized disposal of
private land for a private use,'
ard that the act did not ade-
quately define such terms as
'hlighted area"
The juriStS found the first
complaint was not valid since
the act made no differentiation
as between business and reSiden-
tial property.
On the second point, they said