Evening star., 1953-11-08
Qualified Victory for RedeveIopment

There is no doubt as to the Importance of
the victory which Washington's slum- clearance
and redevelopment program has won from
three-judge court-but the victory must be
regarded as qualified one. Although the
special tribunal has upheld unanimously the
constitutionality of the District Redevelopment
Act, it has raised caution signal against the
sort of bold redevelopment" of the Southwest
envisioned by some OF the planners. The deci-
sion has made it plain that in administering
the act, the National Capital Planning Com
mission and the Redevelopment Land Agency
must keep foremost in mind slum clearance
not merely a face-lifting operation for the
Identification of the city.
The legal attack on the act was brought
by owners of two commercial properties sched-
uled for inclusion in what is known as Project
Area B, notorious slum-ridden area near the
Capitol. The property owners contended that
their buildings were not "slumS" or contributory
to slum conditions and that the seizure of their
holdings for resale to private purchasers under
the redevelopment plan was unconstitutional
Judge E. Barrett Prettyman of the United States
Court of Appeals, speaking also on behalf of
District Judges Curran and Keech, declared
that the seizure of non-Slum properties, when
essential to a particular slum-clearance and
slum- prevention program, is in the interest of
public health, morals and welfare and hence
constitutional.
But the judges added: 'We are of the
opinion that the Congress, in legislating for
the District of Columbia, has no power to
authorize the seizure by eminent domain of
property for the sole purpose of redeveloping
the area according to it's or it's agents, judg-
ment of what a well-developed, well-balanced
neighborhood would be; lest this sentence be
misconstrued out of context, we repeat our
hypothetical assumption that no slum exists
on the hypothetical property or in the area
and that the seizure is not for public use"
Commenting on the Governments claim that
it could seize and redevelop all properties within
an area that is only partly a Slun, the court
said: "This amounts to claim on the part
of the authorities for unreviewable power to
seize and sell whole sections of the city. We
think, as we have indicated, that the Rede
velopment Act does not contain so broad an
authorization" If it did contain such authority,
the court declared, the act would be invalid.
The additional" purposes of the Southwest
program, insofar as they involve beautifying
and making more attractive residentially and
commercially the areas involved, are laudable
Judge Prettyman said. But as yet," he warned
"the courts have not come to call such pleasant
accomplishments public purpose which vail
dates Government seizure of private property.
The claim of Government power for such pur-
poses runs squarely into the right of the indi-
vdual to own property and to use it as he
pleaSes."
Since the complanants in their suits chal-
lenged only the conStitutionality of the act,
not "caprcious or arbitrary" action in admin
istering it, the court ruled only on the former
question. There was strong hint however,
that the second point was worth testing in the
District Court. Since important questions as
to future administration of the redevelopment
program have been raised by the three judges,
it would be in the public interest to have the
issues settled in the courts without further
delay.