Evening star., 1953-11-05
Redeve|opment
Suits Dismissed
Special Court Roises
Question Of Validity
Of Southwest Plan
By George Beveridee

A three-judge Federal tribunal
today dismissed two suits chal-
lenging constitutionality of q
1945 act under which the South
west redevelopment program is
being carried out.
At the same time, however.
the court raised sharp question
about validity of the program
itself and opened the way for
review on this question by the
U. S. District Court for the Dis
trict of Columbia.
The unanimous ruling was
handed down by Judge E. Bar
rett Prettyman of the United
States Court of Appeals and
Judges Edward NJ. Curran and
Richmond B. Keech of the U. S.
District Court.
Suits Were Combined.
The two suits were combined
in an effort to stop the District
Redevelopment Land Agency
from carrying out plans to con-
demn all property in the 76-acre
project B area, clear the land
and sell it to private investor
for rebuilding. The suits were
brought by Mrs. Goldie Schnei-
Ger, owner of a hardware store
at TIC Fourth street SW., and
Max R. Morris, owner of a de-
partment store at 4I2 Fourth
street S.W. Both properties
would be taken in the area B
program.
The special three-judge court,
named to decide the conStitu-
tional issues involved, noted that
complaints brought by the two
property owners were pitched
entirely upon a challenge of the
constitutlonality of the Rede-
velopment Act -"
Therefore, since the statute,
as we construe it, is constitu-
tional, we must grant the (gov-
ernment's) motion to DISMISS"
the decision said. 1t added:
I'm the argument by plaintiffs
counsel in support of their mo-
tions for summary judgment,
reference was made to arbitrary
and capriciouS action by the
planning commission in fixing
the boundary lines of the South
west Redevelopment Project
Area B to include the plaintiffs
commercial properties, while ex-
Guiding other commercial prop
critics on the same street.
Issue Was Not Raised.
This issue, however is not
raised by the pleadings.
Should the pleadings be
amended to include an issue as
to whether or not the admin
istrative agency has acted be-
yond the scope Of the statute, as
construed in this opinion, in in
cluding the plaintiffs properties
within the project area. the case
should be heard by one judge
for determination of that ques-
ton"
New questions about the Gov
ernnent'S right to seize private
property were raised in the suit.
The questions were new mainly
because the idea of redevelop-
ment is new. Redevelopment in
this sense is the elimination Of
entire blighted areas and their
rebuilding.
The redevelopment of South
west Washington-with Project
Area B as the first section to be
involved-is set up in three steps.
The first step is to take title
by eminent domain process to all
land in the 76.6-acre tract form
ing Project Area B and find
homes for the present residents.
The second step will be to tear
down almost every structure in
the tract.
The third step is to sell or
lease the vacant land to a pri-
vate investor who would rebuild.
His rebuilding will be in COM
pliance with an approved plan.
At present, the money needed
is assured, the builder already
7 has been selected and his plan
| approved. The court decision
: was necessary o.clear up legal
: barriers before the whole plan
: could move on.
Project Area B is bounded on
the west by Fourth street, on
the north by the Pennsylvania
; Railroad tracks, on the east by
: South Capitol street and on the
. south by street.