Evening star., 1953-05-27
City Heads Plan
Public Hearing
On Housing Site
Court Defers Ruling
On Challenge to
Project Area B.

The District Commissioners
today said they would hold
public hearing within 80 days to
determine the site of a public
housing development in South
west Washington.
This decision came after an
executive session discussing the
Squabble between the Redevelop-
ment Land Agency and the Ma
tional Capital Housing Author
ity.
The RIA, which controls the
Slum clearance and redevelop-
ment of the Project Area B"
in Southwest Washington, has
taken the position that a public
housing project adjacent to this
pilot area for the clearance
would not be suitable.
Wants Adjacent Site.
NCHA. which controls con-
struction of public housing, wants
to put the project adjacent to
project Area B." on the south
side.
The National Capital Planning
Commission has approved the
site, which was shifted south
ward to get it out of Project
Area B."
The Commissioners had ap-
proved the original site. NCHA
now has asked that the city
heads approve the new site also.
Curt Defers Ruling.
Meanwhile. a Federal three
Judge tribunal today took under
adviSement a motion to de-
clare unconstitutional Southeast
Washington's Area B redevelop-
ment program, after hearing two
days of argument on the
question.
The special court served notice
that a ruling will not be handed
down for some time, perhaps
several weeks, on the suit
brought by two Southwest busi-
ness property owners. The Gov
eminent is asking either for
dismissal or a summary judg-
ment against the constitutional
complaint.
At stake is the pilot project
in a move to clear slums and
rebuild the Southwest's entire
water front area into a modern,
better revenue-producing COM
munity. Plans for the 76-Area
B tract, bordered by Fourth,
and South Capitol streets and
the Pennsylvania Railroad
tracks, already are at the point
that the Redevelopment Land
Agency is negotiating a contract
for its rebuilding and is moving
toward condemnation of nearly
all properties in that area
Both the business properties
involved in the court suit are
slated to be taken in a city, block
being marked for a new
shopping center. The property
owners are Mrs. Goldie Schnei-
der, owner of a hardware store
at TIC Fourth street S.W., and
Max r. Morris, owner of de-
partment store at 712 Fourth
street S.W.
Question Standards.
The basic issue emerging from
the court argument was whether
a 1945 act authorizing the pro-
gram set adequate standards as
to what properties can be seized.
Attorneys Joseph H. Schneider
and James Toomey. the plain
tits lawyers. argued the law re-
ferred to blight conditions but
did not define them. They con-
tend their clients establishments
are not slum structures.
Mr.. Schneider contended the
District has sufficient police pow
erS to condemn structures injur-
ious to health, safety, morals
and welfare. He contended the
main purpose of the legislatio
is redevelopment, with the actual
clearance of slums only a Sec
ondary aim.
Stress Slum Clearance.
Assistant United States At |
torney Ross O'Donoghue and
Assistant Corporation Counsel
Oliver Gasch contended. on the
other hand, that slum clearance
is a major aim of the legislation. |
Judge E. Barrett Prettyman of |
the U. S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia, raised |
sharp questions as to why it was
necessary to take title to the land |
and whether the legislation sets
adequate standards for deter
mining blight conditions.