Evening star., 1953-05-24
Area B Project
Suits 10 Go 10
Court tuesday
Arguments on SIum
Project Expected to
Be Conclusive

De CONCLUSIVE
The stage apparently Is set
for conclusive court arguments
Tuesday on suits challenging
constitutionality Of the Area B
redevelopment program In
Southwest Washington.
Attorneys for both the Govern
ment and two Southwest proper
ty owners indicated last night
they expect arguments before
a special three-judge court to
be narrowed to legal issues in
the case. They doubted wit
neSSeS' testimony as to facts
will be necessary.
Before the court win be mo-
tions both from the Government
and plaintiffs lawyers for q
summary judgment.
Two suits, combined In an ef-
fort to stop the District Redevel-
opment Land Agency from carry
ing out the 76-acre Slum area
redevelopment, are involved.
They were brought by Mrs.
Goldie Schneider, owner of q
hardware store at TIC Fourth
street S.W., and Max r. Morris,
owner Of a department store at
TIP Fourth street S.W. Both the
commercial properties are sched-
uled to be razed as part Of the
redevelopment.
"Guise Of Public USE"
Main contention Of the suits
is that the RIA will take the
RIA will take the properties
under the guise Of public use"
and sell the land to a private in
vestor for rebuilding. They con-
tend this disposition is not a
public use." and therefore is un-
constitutional.
A government motion for dis
misSal or for a summary judg-
ment was filed May IL by As
Sistant United States Attorney
Ross O'Donoghue. representing
the RIA, and Oliver GaSch, Dis
trict Assistant Corporation Coun-
sci.
Replies to the motion were
flied late Thursday by Attorney
Joseph n. Schneider, represent
ing Mrs. Schneider, his mother,
and Attorney James Toomey,
representing Mr.. Morris. Stimuli
taneouSly. the lawyers asked for
a summary Judgment in their
own behalf.
Major Points Raised.
Technically, Government law
yers said, they would be entitled
to a delay beyond Tuesday to
answer the plaintiffs motioA.
They indicated. however, they
would be ready to argue Tuesday.
Mr.. Toomey and Mr.. Schnei-
der did not take issue in the
Thursday filing with afddavits
filed earlier by the Government.
This. officials said, should elimi-
nate lengthy debate about facts
agreed to by both sides in the
case.
The reply filed by the plain
tiffS Thursday raised three ma
jor points in defense of the suit.
The first was the argument that
the proposed taking of property
is not for public use. The second
Is that redevelopment legislation
is primarily a housing act, and
does not permit the taking of
commercial properties. The third
Is that the legislation fails to de-
fine adequate standards for de-
termining slum or blight con-
ditions.
First Federal Case.
An immediate court decision
Tuesday on the motions is not
expected.
Three Judge courts are set up
only to hear questions of a seri-
Gus constitutional nature. The
panel hearing the Southwest case
is made up Of Judge Barrett
Prettyman Of the United States
Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia and Judges Edward
M. Curran and Richmond B.
Keech of the United States Dis
trict Court for the District of
Columbia.
Similar suits have been tried in
. number of States. However,
they have involved the constitu-
tionality Of State laws. This is
the first case raising Federal
constitutional questions about
redevelopment laws passed by
Congress.
The RIA already has selected
a developer. the Bush Construc-
tion Co., of Norfolk, to be award
ed a contract for the Area 3
redevelopment. It currently is
ordering final appraisalS and
title searches Of residential and
business properties in the area
preparatory to acquiring title to
the land.