Evening star., 1954-10-10
Southwest
CONTINUED From First Page.)

NAOLitAAluCU c1OIu EAot GdBc.I
| the acts constitutionality on
these four claims:
/. That the act does not con-
tain sufficient standards for de-
termining what properties can
be taken for redevolpment.
2. That no commercial prop
erty can be validly taken for re-
development.
8. That land can be seized
| only for public use," and that
turning it over to a private in
vestor is an illegal private use"
4. That private property can
| not be seized simply because 1t
lies within an area designated
as "slum" or blighted" by ad-
ministrators.
Brief Points to Additions
In addition to these points. the
Justice Department brief as
serted, the three judge court
took special pains to declare or
intimate:
Serious restrictions on the
taking of the fee title to land
encompassed in a project; a
broad standard of judicial re-
! view of the necessity and pro-
priety of taking for redevelop-
ment purposes; a stern limita-
ton, if not prohibition. on the
power to redevelop an area
upon only a part Of which slums
not exist, and, finally. q rejec-
ton and narrowing Of the leg
islative standards for authoriza-
ton of the project.
"None of these points, whether
made by the court below or by
the appellants" the Justice brief
asserted, deserves the accept
ance of this court"
Action in II States Cited.
The Justice Department docu-
ment said the highest courts of
II States have upheld compar-
able acts without imposing such
restrictions, and added:
There is no reason why the
District of Columbia act L.
should receive a special gloss
making it less effective than the
legislation adopted by the sew
eral States"
Arguing against contentious in
both the Morris appeal and the
three Judge ruling, the Justice
brief gave the most space to a
defense of redevelopment ION an
area basis. y........e,,
It said Congress, unSatisfied
with attacks on slums by regula-
ton or low-cost housing alone,
discarded the piecemeal =
approach and sought to attain
it's goal by replanning or re-
developing the whole of sub
stantial areas"
ITO assure the type Of neigh
borhood which is Congress OBJ
jective." the brief continud, "the
area must be planned rs q whole
and there must be power to take
the land. whatever the particu-
lar structure now standing
thereon"
Charges Aim Disregarded.
Charging also that the three
judge court disregarded "the
proper legislative aim of slum
prevention" the brief declared
TN our view, the courts stric-
lures and restrictions stem from
a fundamental failure to view
the problem as a whole in its
proper setting as well as
from an erroneous conception
of the role of the judiciary in
this field"
In other major points. the
brief:
/. Said Congress declared the
acts provisions to be "a public
use." and that its purposes "are
a proper subject of action by
Congress as the legislature FOL
the District of Columbia"
2. Contended the fact that
condemned land will be sold tc
| private developers does not pre-
vent its acquisition.
3. Asserted that the '1egisla-
tive and administrative" decision
about what property should be
seized for e developm e n t is
rarely, if ever, subject to over
turn by the courts"
4. Contended the act properly
states the purposes of the acqui-
sition and delegates to the ad-
ministrative authorities the de-
tails of selection of particular
/ properties to be acquired tt
serve those aims"
Brief Signed BY Sobeloff.
The Justice brief was signed
by Solicitor General Simon e
SObeloff. who also will present